Skip to main content
. 2021 Jan 20;9(1):2325967120968099. doi: 10.1177/2325967120968099

Table 3.

Population Characteristics, Time Interval, Study Design, and Associated COSMIN Scoresa

Study (Year) Population Characteristics Time Interval Study Design
Sample, Age (y), Female Sex (%), DOPb,c 6.1d Interrater Intrarater 6.2d Test Condition No. of Raters Rater Profession Combined Rater Experiencec Rater Training 6.3d
Aartun (2014)1 111, 12-14, 46.8, middle school students VG <4 d 1-4 h VG 5 item 2 Chiropractors 18 y Standardization session VG
Aslan (2006)3 72, 20.36 ± 1.24 (18-25), 40.20, undergraduate PT students VG <24 h 12.84 ± 7.41 d VG 5 item + goniometer 2 PTs 21 y 2 h practice together VG
Baumhauer (1995)5 21, 18-23, 57, intercollegiate athletes VG 12-16 wk NA VG 5 item 2 NS NS NS A
Boyle (2003)8 42, 25.4 ± 4.2 (15-45), 100, noninjured HS athletes and PT students VG 15-60 min 6 ± 4 d VG 5 item + goniometer 2 PTs 17 y CME, trained with index VG
Bulbena (1992)11 173, 43.98e NS, JHS with >5 Beighton system VG Consecutive NA D 5 item 2 Rheumatologists Experienced NS A
Cooper (2018)15 50, 49 (22-60), 56, community members VG NS 1 wk VG 5 item + goniometer 1 NS NS NS A
Erdogan (2012)18 15, 31.8 (16-50), 59.15, treated for ingrown nails VG NS NS D 5 item + goniometer 2 Rheumatologists NS NS A
Erkula (2005)20 50, 10.4 ± 1.2 (8-15)f 46.97, asymptomatic students VG 2 wk NA VG 5 item 2 Orthopaedic surgeons NS NS A
Evans (2012)21 30, 10.6 ± 2.3 (7-15), 65, asymptomatic podiatry clinic patients VG >2 h >2 h VG 5 item 2 Podiatrists 21 y NS A
Fritz (2005)22 38, 39.2 ± 11f 57,f history of lower back pain VG 5 min NA VG 5 item 2 PTs NS NS A
Glasoe (2002)23 30, 14-24, 100, athletes VG NS NA VG 5 item 2 NS >6 y NS A
Hansen (2002)27 100, 9-13, NS, asymptomatic competitive athletes VG NS NA D 4/5, no fifth finger 4 2 rheumatologists 1 untrained physician NS Guided by illustrations A
Hicks (2003)29 63, 36 (20-66), 60.30, patients with lower back pain VG >15 min NA VG 5 item 4 3 PT, 1 PT and chiropractor 20 y Group review, 1 h practice VG
Hirsch (2007)31 50, 38.3 ± 11.3 (20-60), 56, asymptomatic VG NS 24.6 d VG 5 item + goniometer 2 Dentists NS Instructions, directed by orthopaedic surgeon VG
Junge (2013)34 103, 7-8 and 10-12, 44e healthy school children VG <30 min NA VG 4 PT students NS Trained VG
Juul-Kristensen (2007)35 40, 42.27 (18-71)e 68.33,e BJHS, EDS, back/shoulder pain VG NS NA D 5 item 2 NS NS Trained per protocol VG
Karim (2011)37 30, 24 (18-32), 100, contemporary professional dancers VG NS NA VG 5 item 4 1 PT, 3 PT students 30 y PT trained students VG
Naal (2014)46 55, 28.5 ± 4.1, 32.70, symptomatic FAI cases VG NS NA D 5 item 2 Clinicians NS NS A
Pitetti (2015)49 25, 13.3 ± 2.9, 44, intellectually disabled VG 3-4 wk NA VG 5 item + goniometer 2 DPT students None Peer supportive learning VG
Smith (2012)57 5, 27, 100, patellar instability patients VG <1 d 30 min VG 5 item 5 Orthopaedic surgeons 125 y Familiarized VG
Tarara (2014)58 19, 20.3 ± 1.2 (male), 19.8 ± 1.0 (female), 57.89, club athletes VG <2.5 h 4-7 d VG 5 item 3 1 clinician and 2 novice students 22 y Prior reading, 1 h training and questions VG
Vaishya (2013)62 300, 24.6 ± 0.9, 36.67, postoperative ACL reconstruction and controls VG NS NA D 5 item 2 NS NS NS A
Vallis (2015)63 36, 22.7 (18-32), 75, asymptomatic PT and OT students VG <1 d, 1 wk NA VG 5 item + goniometer 2 Researchers NS Teaching session VG
van der Giessen (2001)65 48, 4-12, 48.9f primary schoolchildren VG NS NA D 5 item 2 PT students 1 mo Professional PT trained students VG

aACL, anterior cruciate ligament; BJHS, benign joint hypermobility syndrome; CME, continuing medical education; DOP, description of participants; DPT, doctorate of physical therapy; EDS, Ehlers-Danlos syndrome; FAI, femoroacetabular impingement; HS, high school; JHS, joint hypermobility syndrome; NA, not available/applicable; NS, not specified; OT, occupational therapy; PT, physical therapy.

bAge reported as mean ± SD or range.

cCalculated.

dCOSMIN criterion (Consensus-Based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments; see Appendix 2 for details). Scoring: VG = very good, A = adequate, D = doubtful, I = inadequate.

eWeighted average of groups or 2-phase studies.

fDemographics of larger sample, of which reliability population is a subgroup.