Table 3. Brink and Louwa critical appraisal summary of the methodological quality of the clinimetric papers.
(n = 15).
| Authors | Neurological Test | Diagnosis | Item 1 | Item 2 | Item 3 | Item 4 | Item 5 | Item 6 | Item 7 | Item 8 | Item 9 | Item 10 | Item 11 | Item 12 | Item 13 | % “Yes” |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Berry [46] | HHD | CP | Y | Y | N/A | N/A | N | N | N/A | N | N/A | Y | N/A | Y | Y | 63 |
| Burns [45] | CMTPedS | CMT | Y | Y | N/A | N | N/A | N | N/A | Y | N/A | Y | N/A | Y | Y | 75 |
| Crompton [47] | HHD | CP | Y | N | N/A | N/A | Y | Y | N/A | N | N/A | Y | N/A | N | Y | 63 |
| Effgen [48] | HHD | SB | Y | N | N/A | N | Y | N | N/A | N | N/A | Y | N/A | Y | Y | 56 |
| Escolar [55] | MMT, RQMS | DMD | Y | Y | N/A | N | N/A | N | N/A | N | N/A | N | N/A | Y | Y | 38 |
| Florence [56] | MMT | DMD | Y | Y | N/A | N/A | Y | N | N/A | N | N/A | N | N/A | Y | Y | 63 |
| Mahony [49] | HHD, MMT | SB | Y | Y | N/A | N | N/A | Y | N/A | Y | N/A | N | N/A | Y | N | 63 |
| Mulcahey [57] | ASIA Scale | SCI | Y | N | N/A | N/A | N | N | N/A | Y | N/A | N | N/A | Y | Y | 50 |
| Stuberg [50] | HHD | DMD | Y | N | N/A | N/A | N | N | N/A | Y | N/A | Y | N/A | Y | Y | 63 |
| Taylor [51] | HHD | CP | Y | Y | N/A | N/A | N | N | N/A | N | N/A | Y | N/A | Y | Y | 63 |
| Van Vulpen [52] | HHD, SHR | CP | Y | Y | N/A | N/A | Y | N | N/A | N | N/A | Y | N/A | Y | Y | 75 |
| Verschuren [53] | HHD | CP | Y | Y | N/A | N | N/A | N | N/A | Y | N/A | Y | N/A | Y | Y | 75 |
| Williemse [54] | HHD | CP | Y | Y | N/A | N/A | Y | N | N/A | Y | N/A | Y | N/A | Y | Y | 88 |
CMTPedS, Charcot-Marie-Tooth Pediatric Scale; HHD, Hand-held dynamometer; MMT, Manual Muscle Test; RQMS, Richmond Quantitative Measurement System; SHR, Standing Heel Rise Test. CP, Cerebral Palsy; CMT, Charcot-Marie-Tooth; SB, Spina Bifida; DMD, Duchenne’s Muscular Dystrophy; Y = ‘Yes’, N = ‘No’, N/A = not applicable. Item 1: If human subjects were used, did the authors give a detailed description of the sample of subjects used to perform the (index) test? Item 2: Did the author’s clarify the qualification, or competence of the rater(s) who performed the (index) test? Item 3: Was the reference standard explained? Item 4: If inter-rater reliability was tested, were raters blinded to the findings of other raters? Item 5: If intrarater reliability was tested, were raters blinded to their own prior findings of the test under evaluation? Item 6: Was the order of examination varied? Item 7: If human participants were used, was the time period between the reference standard and the index test short enough to be reasonably sure that the target condition did not change between the two tests? Item 8: Was the stability (or theoretical stability) of the variable being measured taken into account when determining the suitability of the time interval between repeated measures? Item 9: Was the reference standard independent to the index test? Item 10: Was the execution of the (index) test described in sufficient detail to permit replication of the test? Item 11: Was the execution of the reference standard described in sufficient detail to permit its replication? Item 12: Were withdrawals from the study explained? Item 13: Were the statistical methods appropriate for the purpose of the study?
% “Yes” Are calculated from the number of “yes” responses to applicable items only, items > 60% are shown in bold.
aAdapted from Brink and Louw et al. [6]