Test/Retest Reliability and Validity of Remote vs. In-Person Anthropometric and Physical Performance Assessments in Cancer Survivors and Supportive Partners

Abstract

(1) Background: Anthropometric and physical performance testing is commonly done in lifestyle research and is traditionally performed in-person. To expand the scalability of lifestyle interventions among cancer survivors, in-person assessments were adapted to remote means and evaluated for feasibility, safety, validity, and reliability. (2) Methods: Cancer survivors and supportive partners were approached to participate in three anthropometric and physical performance testing sessions (two remote/one in-person). Correlations, concordance, and differences between testing modes were evaluated. (3) Results: 110-of-112 individuals approached for testing participated (98% uptake); the sample was 78% female, 64% non-Hispanic White, of mean age 58 years and body mass index = 32.4 kg/m2. ICCs for remote assessments ranged from moderate (8’ walk = 0.47), to strong (8’ get-up-and-go = 0.74), to very strong (30 s chair stand = 0.80; sit-and-reach = 0.86; 2 min step test = 0.87; back scratch = 0.90; weight = 0.93; waist circumference = 0.98) (p-values < 0.001). Perfect concordance (100%) was found for side-by-side and semi-tandem balance, and 87.5–90.3% for tandem balance. No significant differences between remote and in-person assessments were found for weight, 8’ walk, and 8’ get-up-and-go. No adverse events occurred and 75% indicated no preference or preferred virtual testing to in-person. (4) Conclusions: Remote anthropometric and physical performance assessments are reliable, valid, acceptable, and safe among cancer survivors and supportive partners.

Validity of On-Line Supervised Fitness Tests in People with Low Back Pain

“…The greatest differences in validity were observed in the 8-foot up-and-go test with an ICC = 0.64 compared to an ICC = 0.80 observed in a previous study [26]. This could be due to the difference in the test performance, being higher in the present study than in the study focused on cancer survivors [26].…”

Assessing the Suitability of a Virtual ‘Pink Warrior’ for Older Breast Cancer Survivors during COVID-19: A Pilot Study

“…Handouts providing detailed set-up instructions were provided to the participants ahead of time. The selected objective physical function measures have been previously administered remotely in published studies by Blair et al, Guidarelli et al, and Hoenemeyer et al [ 30 , 31 , 60 ]. Blair et al have been using the 30 s chair stand test, which is similar to the five times sit-to-stand test in SPPB and the TUG test via videoconferencing in older survivors of cancer [ 31 ].…”

“…They found good agreement with in-person tests (ICC = 0.88) for TUG and substantial agreement between repeat assessments for total SPPB score (Cohen’s kappa of 0.78) [ 30 ]. Hoenemeyer et al also found strong agreement (ICC = 0.74) for TUG and very strong agreement (ICC = 0.87) for the 2-min step test among cancer survivors and their partners [ 60 ]. Detailed descriptions of how the assessor set up the assessments are included in the Supplemental Material (Table S1) .…”

Adapting MultiPLe behavior Interventions that eFfectively Improve (AMPLIFI) cancer survivor health: program project protocols for remote lifestyle intervention and assessment in 3 inter-related randomized controlled trials among survivors of obesity-related cancers

“…Virtual protocols were assessed for reliability and validity, and assessors were trained and evaluated for accuracy prior to initiation [53]. Zoom ® sessions are recorded to permit accuracy for timed performance testing, reduce the discrepancy introduced by differential transmission of sight and sound and inform periodic quality assurance evaluations among assessors.…”

“…The Senior Fitness Battery objectively assesses physical performance in several domains, is sensitive to change, devoid of ceiling effects, and has normative scores [52]. Typically done in-person, tests were adapted to virtual use, refined, and then evaluated for validity and reliability [53]; arm curls and grip strength, were not included given requirements for costly equipment and/or excessive postage.…”