this article and any supplementary material should be cited as follows: lindner hy, langius-eklöf...

This article and any supplementary material should be cited as follows: Lindner HY, Langius-Eklöf A, Hermansson LM. Testretestreliability and rater agreements of Assessment of Capacity for Myoelectric Control version 2.0. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2014;51(4):635–44. http://dx.doi.org/10.1682/JRRD.2013.09.0197

Slideshow ProjectDOI:10.1682/JRRD.2013.09.0197JSP

Test-retest reliability and rater agreements of Assessment of Capacity

for Myoelectric Control version 2.0

Helen Y. N. Lindner, PhD; Ann Langius-Eklöf, PhD; Liselotte M. N. Hermansson, PhD



• Aim– Evaluate test-retest reliability and rater agreements of

Assessment of Capacity for Myoelectric Control (ACMC) version 2.0.

• Relevance– ACMC is an observation-based assessment that

evaluates ability to control myoelectric prosthetic hand in bimanual activities

– Stability of ACMC measures has not been evaluated over time.



Method

• Upper-limb prosthesis users:– Performed standardized activity twice, 2 to 5 wk apart.

• Activity performances were:– Video recorded.– Assessed by 2 ACMC raters.

• Data were analyzed by:– Weighted kappa.– Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC).– Bland-Altman.



Results• Test-retest reliability– Weighted kappa: fair to excellent. – ICC: 0.94.– Bland-Altman: 1 user outside limits of agreement.– Minimal detectable change (MDC):0.55 logits (1 rater)

and 0.69 logits (2 raters). • Interrater reliability– Weighted kappa agreements: fair to excellent.– ICC: 0.95 (test) and 0.92 (retest).

• Intrarater agreement– Excellent.



Conclusion

• Evidence regarding stability of ACMC version 2.0 measures over time is satisfactory.

• MDC value can be clinically useful. • Further research is needed to determine:– Minimal clinically important difference.– Responsiveness of ACMC.

this article and any supplementary material should be cited as follows: lindner hy, langius-eklöf...

Documents