Reliability: Current Issues and Concerns

© 2005 Human Kinetics • ATT 10(6), pp. 24-25 THLETIC TRAINERS FIND themselves using a variety of measurements to record their patients’ progress, including traditional paper-and-pencil, computerized, online, and physical (e.g., isokinetics, goniometry) testing tools. Establishing evidence that a treatment or intervention benefits patients forms the foundation of evidence-based practice. Evidence-based practice is the integration of research and clinical expertise in the application of therapeutic procedures.1 A clinician uses procedures and therapies that scientific research has demonstrated to be both reliable and valid. Evidence-based practice has become a central issue in the struggle to demonstrate that certified athletic trainers are effective clinicians. To address the increased need for evidence-based clinical practice, a variety of tools have been developed to assess patient progress. Having an understanding of reliability and validity is important in establishing and selecting the right tool to use. These terms, however, are often misunderstood and used incorrectly. Because reliability and validity are significantly broad topics to examine, this column briefly examines the current issues with respect to reliability only.

[1]  S. Satya‐Murti.  Evidence-based Medicine: How to Practice and Teach EBM , 1997 .

[2]  S. Carey,et al.  The Crawford Long Hospital of Emory University Experience , 1997, Orthopedic nursing.

[3]  E. C. Huskisson,et al.  Graphic representation of pain , 1976, Pain.

[4]  Nigel O'Brian,et al.  Generalizability Theory I , 2003 .

[5]  A. Odén,et al.  An application of pain rating scales in geriatric patients , 2000, Aging.

[6]  C. Denegar,et al.  Effect of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, cold, and a combination treatment on pain, decreased range of motion, and strength loss associated with delayed onset muscle soreness. , 1992, Journal of athletic training.

[7]  Educational Evaluation.  Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing , 1999 .

[8]  D. Sackett.  Evidence-based medicine: how to practice and teach EBM: 2nd ed , 2000 .

[9]  Richard J. Shavelson,et al.  Generalizability Theory: A Primer , 1991 .

[10]  Robert L. Brennan,et al.  NCME instructional module: Generalizability theory. , 1992 .

[11]  S. Sawilowsky.  Psychometrics versus Datametrics: Comment on Vacha-Haase’s “Reliability Generalization” Method and Some Epm Editorial Policies , 2000 .

[12]  S. Piantadosi,et al.  A comparison of the Hopkins Pain Rating Instrument with standard visual analogue and verbal descriptor scales in patients with cancer pain. , 1992, Journal of pain and symptom management.

[13]  T. M. Wood,et al.  Measurement Concepts in Physical Education and Exercise Science , 1989 .

[14]  Lauren J. DeLoach,et al.  The Visual Analog Scale in the Immediate Postoperative Period: Intrasubject Variability and Correlation with a Numeric Scale , 1998, Anesthesia and analgesia.

[15]  Robert L. Brennan.  Some Applications of Generalizability Theory to the Dependability of Domain-Referenced Tests. ACT Technical Bulletin No. 32. , 1979 .

[16]  M. Gustafsson,et al.  Rheumatoid arthritis: determination of pain characteristics and comparison of RAI and VAS in its measurement , 1990, Pain.

[17]  Alija Kulenović,et al.  Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing , 1999 .

[18]  E. Matthew.  Annual Meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education , 2002 .

[19]  Eva Nick,et al.  The dependability of behavioral measurements: theory of generalizability for scores and profiles , 1973 .

[20]  Donald B. Rubin,et al.  The Dependability of Behavioral Measurements: Theory of Generalizability for Scores and Profiles. , 1974 .