DesignThe muscle tone and spasticity of 35 participants were measured twice (test and retest) <strong>with</strong> theMAS and MTS. The retest was conducted one week after the <strong>in</strong>itial test. The participants were firstassessed <strong>with</strong> the MAS and afterwards <strong>with</strong> the MTS. For each participant, both measurementswere conducted at the same time of day and under the same conditions. Two observersperformed the measurements. The <strong>in</strong>terrater reliability of the MAS and MTS was determ<strong>in</strong>edfrom the measurements of the two observers. The test-retest reliability of the MAS and MTS wasdeterm<strong>in</strong>ed by us<strong>in</strong>g the test-retest measurements of observer 1.MeasuresPrior to the measurements, the observers and personal guides of the participants completeda checklist conta<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g the exclusion criteria. Both observers were present at the time of themeasurements. So that test<strong>in</strong>g would not cause additional stress to the participants, we madesure that the participants were familiar <strong>with</strong> observer 2. We created a protocol describ<strong>in</strong>g howto adm<strong>in</strong>ister the MAS and MTS based on the protocol of Gielen [18]. Gracies et al. [15] statedthat tra<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g was associated <strong>with</strong> a highly significant improvement <strong>in</strong> reliability, so the observerswere tra<strong>in</strong>ed on how to perform the protocol. The tra<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g consisted of a brief explanation of theprotocol and practical exercises. Dur<strong>in</strong>g the practical exercises, the results were compared anddiscussed. In the present study, we measured the most restricted jo<strong>in</strong>t motion of both the elbowand the knee.Modified Ashworth Scale (MAS)The MAS was carried out as follows. Dur<strong>in</strong>g five repetitions of a passive motion <strong>with</strong><strong>in</strong> one second,resistance was scored on the follow<strong>in</strong>g 6-po<strong>in</strong>t scale [7]:0 = No <strong>in</strong>creased resistance1 = Slightly <strong>in</strong>creased resistance (catch followed by relaxation or m<strong>in</strong>imal resistance at the endof the range of motion)1 + = Slightly <strong>in</strong>creased resistance (catch followed by m<strong>in</strong>imal resistance throughout less than halfof the range of motion)2 = Clear resistance throughout most of the range of motion3 = Strong resistance; passive movement is difficult4 = Rigid flexion or extensionCatch is the phenomenon that suddenly a strong resistance occurs dur<strong>in</strong>g a fast passivemovement.Modified Tardieu Scale (MTS)The MTS consists of two measurements: R2 and R1 [16]. A goniometer was used for measur<strong>in</strong>g therange of motion. The measurements were accurate to the 5-degree level. The R2 measurementconsisted of slow motion performed <strong>with</strong><strong>in</strong> one second. The range of motion was measured <strong>with</strong>a goniometer. The R1 measurement consisted of fast motion performed <strong>with</strong><strong>in</strong> half a second. Therange of motion immediately after the catch was measured <strong>with</strong> a goniometer.Chapter 7 | 109
Data analysesThe data were analysed us<strong>in</strong>g SPSS 15.0. The distribution of the data was determ<strong>in</strong>ed and checkedfor normal distribution.FeasibilityTo assess feasibility, we compared the number of successful measurements per task to the totalnumber of measurements. S<strong>in</strong>ce it only makes sense to use a test if a reasonable percentage ofsuccessful measurements can be made, this aspect of feasibility was considered to be sufficient if85% of the measurements were successful [23, 24].Test-retest reliabilityFirstly, to determ<strong>in</strong>e whether significant differences between test and retest measurements exist,we analyzed the differences us<strong>in</strong>g the t-test or, <strong>in</strong> case of non-normally distributed data, theWilcoxon signed rank test. The level of statistical significance was set at 0.05.Secondly, <strong>in</strong>traclass correlation coefficients (ICC; two-way random, absolute agreement) ofmeasurements 1 and 2 were computed. Reliability was considered to be acceptable if the ICC wasgreater than 0.75 and the 95% confidence <strong>in</strong>terval (CI) was 0.3 or less. Reliability was consideredto be very good if the ICC was greater than 0.9 [25].Thirdly, Spearman correlation coefficients of measurements 1 and 2 were computed.Spearman’s correlation was used because the data were not normally distributed. A correlation of0.61 or more is considered good [26].Fourthly, for the MTS, limits of agreement (LOA) between measurements 1 and 2 werecalculated accord<strong>in</strong>g to the procedure described by Bland and Altman [27]. LOAs were expressedtogether <strong>with</strong> the mean differences between measurements 1 and 2, and were judged whetherthey were narrow enough for the test to be of practical use, accord<strong>in</strong>g to Atk<strong>in</strong>son and Nevill[28]. For the MAS, quadratically weighted kappa for measurements 1 and 2 was calculated.The quadratically weighted kappa is a measure of the proportion of agreement greater thanthat expected by chance. Values of kappa below .40 are generally considered to be cl<strong>in</strong>icallyunacceptable, those <strong>with</strong><strong>in</strong> .41-.60 to be moderate, those <strong>with</strong><strong>in</strong> .61-.80 to be substantial, andthose .81-1.00 to be almost perfect [29]. To obta<strong>in</strong> 95% confidence <strong>in</strong>tervals (CIs) for the weightedkappa coefficients, we used the adjusted bootstrap percentile (BCa) method [30, 31] by employ<strong>in</strong>gthe statistical programm<strong>in</strong>g language R [32].F<strong>in</strong>ally, the test-retest reliability of the MTS was considered reliable if (1) there were nosignificant differences between the test and retest measurements; (2) ICC was acceptable, asdescribed above; (3) Spearman correlation coefficient was acceptable, as described above; and(4) LOA was acceptable, as described above. The test-retest reliability of the MAS was consideredreliable if (1) there were no significant differences between the test and retest measurements; (2)ICC was acceptable, as described above; (3) Spearman correlation coefficient was acceptable, asdescribed above; and (4) quadratically weighted kappa was almost perfect, <strong>with</strong> a 95% CI fromsubstantial to almost perfect, as described above.110 | Chapter 7
- Page 2 and 3:
Measuring physical fitnessin person
- Page 4:
Rijksuniversiteit GroningenMeasurin
- Page 10 and 11:
Chapter 1IntroductionChapter 1 | 9
- Page 12 and 13:
overweight [15]. This prevalence is
- Page 14 and 15:
Theoretical framework of the studyI
- Page 16 and 17:
Components of physical fitnessThe a
- Page 18 and 19:
Therefore, a study is put forward w
- Page 20 and 21:
2002;40:436-444.19 Temple VA, Frey
- Page 22 and 23:
Chapter 2Feasibility and reliabilit
- Page 24 and 25:
IntroductionPhysical fitness and he
- Page 26 and 27:
GMFCS was presented to the investig
- Page 28 and 29:
Body weightTo determine the body we
- Page 30 and 31:
Table 1 Results of Wilcoxon rank te
- Page 32 and 33:
Calculation of heightThe mean (SD)
- Page 34 and 35:
DiscussionThe results of our study
- Page 36 and 37:
References1 Bouchard C, Shepard RJ,
- Page 38 and 39:
37 Rimmer J, Kelly LE, Rosentswieg
- Page 40 and 41:
Chapter 3Measuring waist circumfere
- Page 42 and 43:
IntroductionChildren and adults wit
- Page 44 and 45:
participants. These calculations as
- Page 46 and 47:
Data analysisThe data were analyzed
- Page 48:
Table 2. Simple regression analysis
- Page 54 and 55:
Chapter 4Feasibility and reliabilit
- Page 56 and 57:
IntroductionPeople with intellectua
- Page 58 and 59:
Eighty representatives gave permiss
- Page 60 and 61: 3) The measurement procedure: The m
- Page 62 and 63: and whether motivation influenced t
- Page 64 and 65: Table 3. Mean peak heart rate achie
- Page 66 and 67: AcknowledgementsThis research was f
- Page 68 and 69: 21 Hopkins WG, Gaeta H, Thomas AC,
- Page 70 and 71: Chapter 5Psychometric quality of a
- Page 72 and 73: IntroductionIntellectual disability
- Page 74 and 75: Exclusion criteria were mental or p
- Page 76 and 77: participant had fulfilled the task.
- Page 78 and 79: Table 2. Descriptive results peak h
- Page 80 and 81: Table 3. Test-retest reliability of
- Page 82 and 83: Table 4. Correlation scored motivat
- Page 84 and 85: preceding GXT results on HR peak. G
- Page 86 and 87: References1 Schalock R, Brown I, Br
- Page 88 and 89: 37 Stanish HI, Temple VA, Frey GC.
- Page 90 and 91: Chapter 6Feasibility and reliabilit
- Page 92 and 93: IntroductionLocomotor skills in peo
- Page 94 and 95: this study was to evaluate the feas
- Page 96 and 97: obtained from the legal representat
- Page 98 and 99: Modified Berg Balance Scale scoresI
- Page 100 and 101: Modified Berg Balance Scale scoresT
- Page 102 and 103: References1 Van Erkelens-Zwets JHJ
- Page 104 and 105: 39 Dorai-Raj S. Binomial Confidence
- Page 106 and 107: Chapter 7Feasibility, test-retest r
- Page 108 and 109: IntroductionPersons with profound i
- Page 112 and 113: Interrater reliabilityFirstly, to d
- Page 114 and 115: Table 3. Summary of the statistical
- Page 116 and 117: Table 6. Summary of the statistical
- Page 118 and 119: RecommendationsThe feasibility of c
- Page 120 and 121: 18 Gielen EJJM. Is spasticiteit te
- Page 122 and 123: Chapter 8Heart Rate Pattern as an I
- Page 124 and 125: IntroductionIt is important to gain
- Page 126 and 127: 48 persons18 persons lacked permiss
- Page 128 and 129: Furthermore, the mean and the range
- Page 130 and 131: Table 3. Day-to-day outline of the
- Page 132 and 133: Relation between heart rate pattern
- Page 134 and 135: patterns in this study we can concl
- Page 136 and 137: References1 Emerson E. Underweight,
- Page 138 and 139: 38 Multilevel Models Project (2004)
- Page 140 and 141: Chapter 9General DiscussionChapter
- Page 142 and 143: on this. To sum up, testing in pers
- Page 144 and 145: for future research it is recommend
- Page 146 and 147: studies. Randomized Controlled Tria
- Page 148 and 149: of these individuals require more?
- Page 150 and 151: 19 Lahtinen U, Rintala P, Malin A.
- Page 152 and 153: SummarySummary | 151
- Page 154 and 155: problems in both locomotor skills a
- Page 156 and 157: subjects are to be applied to perso
- Page 158 and 159: may be an indicator of activity lev
- Page 160 and 161:
SamenvattingSamenvatting | 159
- Page 162 and 163:
InleidingVoldoende bewegen en fithe
- Page 164 and 165:
verstandelijk niveau en bepaalde mo
- Page 166 and 167:
Hieruit bleek, dat de motivatie van
- Page 168 and 169:
Verder is duidelijk geworden dat me
- Page 170 and 171:
DankwoordDankwoord | 169
- Page 172 and 173:
De leden van de leescommissie, prof
- Page 174 and 175:
Judith van der Boom, dank je wel vo
- Page 176 and 177:
Dankwoord | 175
- Page 178 and 179:
Curriculum vitaeCurriculum vitae |
- Page 180:
Curriculum vitae | 179