Table 4. COSMINa reliability 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 | Item 14 | COSMIN Grade |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Berry [46] | HHD | CP | 1 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 1 | N/A | N/A | N/A | Poor |
| Burns [45] | CMTPedS | CMT | 2 | 2 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 1 | N/A | N/A | N/A | Poor |
| Crompton [47] | HHD | CP | 2 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | N/A | N/A | N/A | Poor |
| Effgen [48] | HHD | SB | 1 | 2 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 1 | N/A | N/A | N/A | Poor |
| Escolar [55] | MMT, RQMS | DMD | 2 | 2 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 2 | N/A | N/A | 2 | Poor |
| Florence [56] | MMT | DMD | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 4 | 1 | 4 | 1 | N/A | 1 | 2 | Poor |
| Mahony [49] | HHD, MMT | SB | 1 | 2 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 4 | 4 | N/A | N/A | 1 | Poor |
| Mulcahey [57] | ASIA Scale | SCI | 2 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 2 | N/A | N/A | N/A | Poor |
| Stuberg [50] | HHD | DMD | 1 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 3 | N/A | N/A | N/A | Poor |
| Taylor [51] | HHD | CP | 2 | 3 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 1 | N/A | N/A | N/A | Poor |
| Van Vulpen [52] | HHD, SHR | CP | 1 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | N/A | N/A | N/A | Poor |
| Verschuren [53] | HHD | CP | 1 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 2 | N/A | N/A | N/A | Poor |
| Williemse [54] | HHD | CP | 1 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | N/A | N/A | N/A | Poor |
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; HHD, Hand held dynamometer; SB, Spina Bifida; DMD, Duchenne’s Muscular Dystrophy; COSMIN Grades: 1 = excellent, 2 = good, 3 = fair, 4 = poor, N/A = non-applicable. Item 1: Was the percentage of missing items given? Item 2: Was there a description of how missing items were handled? Item 3: Was the sample size included in the analysis adequate? Item 4: Were at least two measurements available? Item 5: Were the administrations independent? Item 6: Was the time interval stated? Item 7: Were patients stable in the interim period on the construct to be measured? Item 8: Was the time interval appropriate? Item 9: Were the test conditions similar for both measurements? e.g., type of administration, environment, and instructions Item 10: Were there any important flaws in the design or methods of the study? Item 11: For continuous scores: Was an intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) calculated? Item 12: For dichotomous/nominal/ordinal scores: Was kappa calculated? Item 13: For ordinal scores: Was a weighted kappa calculated? Item 14: For ordinal scores: Was the weighting scheme described? e.g. linear, quadratic
aCOSMIN methodological quality using Box B on reliability adapted from Mokkink 2010 et al. [8] as there was no evidence on validity or responsiveness