4.0 Article

Relative and Absolute Reliability of Physical Function Measures in People with End-Stage Renal Disease

Journal

PHYSIOTHERAPY CANADA
Volume 62, Issue 2, Pages 122-128

Publisher

UNIV TORONTO PRESS INC
DOI: 10.3138/physio.62.2.122

Keywords

end-stage renal disease; Human Activity Profile; reliability; 6-minute walk test; timed-sit-to-stand

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: End-stage renal disease (ESRD) is a condition affecting multiple physiological systems, leading to a decline in physical function. Effectiveness of therapeutic interventions in people with ESRD has been assessed using various functional and activity outcome measures. The purpose of this study was to determine the relative and absolute reliability of the 6-minute walk test (6MWT), timed sit-to-stand in 30 seconds (TSS30), and maximal and adjusted activity scores (MAS-HAP, MS-HAP) of the Human Activity Profile (HAP) in people with ESRD. Method: A convenience sample of 25 participants (67.2 +/- 14.2 years) was recruited from an outpatient dialysis unit. Relative reliability was determined using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC2,1), and absolute test-retest reliability with the standard error of measurement (SEM) and minimal detectable change at the 95% confidence interval (MDC95) statistics, respectively. The test-retest interval was 1 week. Results: Relative reliability (ICC2,1) was 0.93 for both the 6MWT and the TSS30, 0.92 for the MS-HAP, and 0.76 for the MAS-HAP. Absolute reliability (SEM and MDC95) values for the 6MWT, MS-HAP, and TSS30 were 28 m and 77 m, 4.1 and 11.4, and 0.9 and 2.6 repetitions, respectively. Conclusions: Our results suggest that the 6MWT, TSS30, and MS-HAP are reliable physical function and activity outcome measures in people with ESRD. However, the magnitude of the absolute reliability statistics suggests significant within-participant variability on repeat testing in this population.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available