IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0073990.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Case for Using the Repeatability Coefficient When Calculating Test–Retest Reliability

Author

Listed:
  • Sharmila Vaz
  • Torbjörn Falkmer
  • Anne Elizabeth Passmore
  • Richard Parsons
  • Pantelis Andreou

Abstract

The use of standardised tools is an essential component of evidence-based practice. Reliance on standardised tools places demands on clinicians to understand their properties, strengths, and weaknesses, in order to interpret results and make clinical decisions. This paper makes a case for clinicians to consider measurement error (ME) indices Coefficient of Repeatability (CR) or the Smallest Real Difference (SRD) over relative reliability coefficients like the Pearson’s (r) and the Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC), while selecting tools to measure change and inferring change as true. The authors present statistical methods that are part of the current approach to evaluate test–retest reliability of assessment tools and outcome measurements. Selected examples from a previous test–retest study are used to elucidate the added advantages of knowledge of the ME of an assessment tool in clinical decision making. The CR is computed in the same units as the assessment tool and sets the boundary of the minimal detectable true change that can be measured by the tool.

Suggested Citation

  • Sharmila Vaz & Torbjörn Falkmer & Anne Elizabeth Passmore & Richard Parsons & Pantelis Andreou, 2013. "The Case for Using the Repeatability Coefficient When Calculating Test–Retest Reliability," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(9), pages 1-1, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0073990
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0073990
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0073990
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0073990&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0073990?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Jan Henrik Terheyden & Maximilian W M Wintergerst & Peyman Falahat & Moritz Berger & Frank G Holz & Robert P Finger, 2020. "Automated thresholding algorithms outperform manual thresholding in macular optical coherence tomography angiography image analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(3), pages 1-12, March.
    2. Beatrice Backman Lönn & Niclas Olofsson & Mats Jong, 2019. "Translation and validation of the Clinical Trial Nursing Questionnaire in Swedish—A first step to clarify the clinical research nurse role in Sweden," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(13-14), pages 2696-2705, July.
    3. Emma von Wowern & Gerd Östling & Peter M Nilsson & Per Olofsson, 2015. "Digital Photoplethysmography for Assessment of Arterial Stiffness: Repeatability and Comparison with Applanation Tonometry," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(8), pages 1-19, August.
    4. Hayfa Almutary & Nahla Tayyib, 2021. "Translation, Adaptation, and Validation of Chronic Kidney Disease Self-Management and Knowledge Instruments for People at Pre-Dialysis Stage in the Arab World," Clinical Nursing Research, , vol. 30(8), pages 1231-1240, November.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0073990. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.