Interrater and Intrarater Reliability of the Assisting Hand Assessment
Marie Holmefur, Lena Krumlinde‐Sundholm, Ann‐Christin Eliasson
Abstract
Marie Holmefur, Lena Krumlinde‐Sundholm, Ann‐Christin Eliasson
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate interrater and intrarater reliability for the Assisting Hand Assessment. METHOD: For interrater reliability, two designs were used: 2 occupational therapists rated the same 18 children, and 20 occupational therapists rated the same 8 children. For intrarater reliability, 20 raters each rated one child twice. Both English and Swedish versions of the instrument were used. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and standard error of measurement (SEM) were calculated. RESULTS: ICCs for the sum score for the interrater were 0.98 (two raters) and 0.97 (20 raters) and for the intrarater 0.99. SEM was 1.5 for interrater and 1.2 for the intrarater study, which gave an error interval of +/-3 raw scores for interrater and +/- 2.4 raw scores for intrarater. CONCLUSION: This study shows excellent interrater and intrarater reliability for sum scores.
OpenAlex reports 140 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.
A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.
Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate interrater and intrarater reliability for the Assisting Hand Assessment. METHOD: For interrater reliability, two designs were used: 2 occupational therapists rated the same 18 children, and 20 occupational therapists rated the same 8 children. For intrarater reliability, 20 raters each rated one child twice. Both English and Swedish versions of the instrument were used. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and standard error of measurement (SEM) were calculated. RESULTS: ICCs for the sum score for the interrater were 0.98 (two raters) and 0.97 (20 raters) and for the intrarater 0.99. SEM was 1.5 for interrater and 1.2 for the intrarater study, which gave an error interval of +/-3 raw scores for interrater and +/- 2.4 raw scores for intrarater. CONCLUSION: This study shows excellent interrater and intrarater reliability for sum scores.
Key concepts: Inter-rater reliability, Intra-rater reliability, Intraclass correlation, Reliability (semiconductor), Psychology, Raw score, Physical therapy, Orthodontics