Skip to main content
. 2016 Aug 11;121(4):849–857. doi: 10.1152/japplphysiol.00819.2015

Table 2.

Reliability and prediction accuracy of the manual vs. automated analysis of cardiac cycle TAMean velocities

Resting
Postcontraction
Manual ICC Auto ICC SEE, cm/s Manual ICC Auto ICC SEE, cm/s
Interrater 0.85 (0.78–0.9) 0.99 (0.99–0.99) 0.60 (12.6%) 0.90 (0.86–0.93) 0.99 (0.98–0.99) 1.63 (6.7%)
Intrarater, rater 1 1.00 (1.00–1.00) 0.99 (0.99–1.00) 0.38 (7.83%) 1.00 (1.00–1.00) 1.00 (1.00–1.00) 1.38 (5.72%)
Intrarater, rater 2 0.94 (0.92–0.96) 0.99 (0.99–0.99) 0.74 (15.6%) 1.00 (0.99–1.00) 1.00 (1.00–1.00) 1.81 (7.39%)

ICC values are given as ICC (95% confidence interval). Interrater ICC method (2,k) calculated as the average of analysis trials 1 and 2 for each rater. Intrarater ICC method (2,1) calculated as the agreement between analysis trials 1 and 2 for each rater. SEE values are given as SEE (SEE %). SEE % represents the SEE divided by the average TAMean velocity for the manual method multiplied by 100. ICC, intraclass correlation coefficient; SEE, standard error estimate.