Skip to main content
. 2022 Mar 24;19:35. doi: 10.1186/s12984-022-01011-9

Table 2.

Reliability of 35 performance measures extracted from the five tablet tasks

Variables N Rater1 (Mean ± SD) Rater2 (Mean ± SD) ICC (95CI) Corr. (r) or (rs) SEM (95%CI) MDC (95%CI) p-value
Finger recognition
 1. RT mirror cond. (ms) 32 635 ± 85.7 606.9 ± 88.16 0.72 0.71*** 46.79 129.7 0.20
 2. RT inverted cond. (ms) 857.4 ± 160.6 794 ± 181.3 0.77 0.77*** 83.86 232.44 0.14
 3. RT rotated cond. (ms) 771.9 ± 124.2 716.7 ± 162.6 0.71 0.59*** 72.93 202.15 0.01
 4. Average RT (ms) 754.8 ± 110.7 705.9 ± 132.9 0.82 0.82*** 53.6 148.55 0.12
 5. RT cond. inverted-mirror (ms) 222.4 ± 127 187.2 ± 124 0.64 0.56*** 76.85 213.01 0.08
  6. RT cond. rotated-mirror (ms) 136.9 ± 86.5 109.8 ± 129.5 0.62 0.63*** 68.86 190.6 0.10
 7. SD of Average RT (ms) 200 ± 58.1 179.4 ± 52.9 0.58 0.50** 33.81 93.71 0.02
 8. Average Correct Trial (N) 0.97 ± 0.03 0.98 ± 0.03 0.46 0.40* 0.02 0.57 0.01
Rhythm tapping
 9. ITI 1 Hz cued (ms) 27 924.8 ± 40.3 944.7 ± 25.7 0.31 0.22 28.30 78.44 0.01
 10. ITI 2 Hz cued (ms) 476.2 ± 25.5 484.5 ± 21.4 0.66 0.66*** 13.9 38.7 0.01
 11. ITI 3 Hz cued (ms) 287.1 ± 19.7 311.6 ± 23.1 0.72 0.55** 11.59 32.13  < 0.0001
 12. ITI 1 Hz no_cue (ms) 969.2 ± 81.3 975.9 ± 69.3 0.55 0.54** 51.47 142.71 0.63
 13. ITI 2 Hz no_cue (ms) 505.1 ± 28.3 504.2 ± 29.4 0.45 0.44* 21.69 60.11 0.88
 14. ITI 3 Hz no_cue (ms) 330.9 ± 26.8 324.5 ± 24.3 0.76 0.75*** 12.95 35.89 0.08
 15. SD ITI 3 Hz no_cue (ms) 4.31 ± 1.94 3.35 ± 1.31 − 0.02 − 0.02 1.67 4.63 0.045
Multi-finger tapping
 16. RT single-finger (ms) 32 367.5 ± 33.8 361.9 ± 26.6 0.68 0.68*** 17.64 48.90 0.21
 17. RT two-finger-combin. (ms) 31 410.9 ± 54.3 399.5 ± 37.9 0.60 0.64*** 28.90 80.11 0.18
 18. RT (two-single) (ms) 447.8 ± 33.8 384.5 ± 24.7 0.44 0.45* 22.42 62.14 0.28
 19. Unwanted movements single-finger (N/trial) 0.06 ± 0.08 0.06 ± 0.07 0.19 0.18 0.07 0.19 0.93
 20. Unwanted movements two-finger combination (N/trial) 0.54 ± 0.19 0.62 ± 0.22 0.09 − 0.09 0.2 0.55 0.17
 21. Correct trials single-finger (N/trial) 0.98 ± 0.04 0.94 ± 0.18 − 0.05 − 0.06 0.13 0.36 0.91
 22. Correct trials two-finger combination (N/trial) 0.90 ± 0.12 0.94 ± 0.07 − 0.09 − 0.11 0.1 0.28 0.09
Sequence tapping
 23. STT.memory.seq1 (N correct trials) 34 4.38 ± 1.2 4.6 ± 0.9 0.72 0.48** 0.57 1.61 0.31
 24. STT.acquisition-memory.seq1 (N) 0.5 ± 1.2 0.36 ± 0.84 0.69 0.29 0.59 1.62 0.65
 25. STT.memory.seq2 (N) 29 4.7 ± 0.78 4.64 ± 0.84 0.76 0.65*** 0.41 1.14 0.59
 26. STT.acquisition-memory.seq2 (N) 0.24 ± 0.77 0.27 ± 0.74 0.66 0.64*** 0.45 1.26 0.38
 27. Mean STT. memory. seq1 + 2 (N) 4.47 ± 0.95 4.54 ± 0.85 0.84 0.84 0.45 1.26 0.47
Line tracking
 28. Duration single-task (s) 34 36.6 ± 14 32.4 ± 14.8 0.78 0.72*** 6.77 18.77 0.01
 29. Duration dual-task (s) 33.7 ± 10.1 30.9 ± 9.2 0.76 0.75*** 4.85 13.44 0.02
 30. Average Duration single + dual (s) 34.7 31.4 ± 10.7 0.84 0.84*** 0.76 2.11 0.002
 31. Duration (dual-task-single-task) (s) − 2.9 ± 8.4 − 1.5 ± 8.2 0.34 0.28 0.34 0.94 0.51
 32. Average Error (N pixels) 81.6 ± 23.6 72.3 ± 17.9 0.60 0.57*** 12.51 34.68 0.002
 33. Error/duration single-task (N/s) 2.6 ± 1.2 2.4 ± 1 0.69 0.62*** 0.69 1.91 0.32
 34. Error/duration dual-task (N/s) 2.4 ± 1.1 2.4 ± 1.1 0.69 0.62*** 0.59 1.63 0.44
 35. Average Error/duration (N/s) 2.5 ± 1.1 2.4 ± 1.1 0.76 0.64*** 0.54 1.50 0.87

Variables in bold: selected for inter-task correlations (Additional file 1: Table S1). Terms in italics denote various task conditions. N = sample size, SD: standard deviation, ICC: Intraclass correlation, RT: reaction time (ms), ITI: intertap interval, cued: with auditory cues, no_cue: without auditory cues. STT: number of successful tap trials. Corr: correlation coefficient between rater1 and rater2 values, r: Pearson’s correlation, rs: Spearman’s correlation. Note: asterisks indicate level of significance: *p ≤ 0.05, **p ≤ 0.01, ***p ≤ 0.001. p-values followed by † are based on non-parametric Wilcoxon paired test, otherwise paired t-test. ICCs based on not log-transformed data showed only small deviations from the corresponding log-transformed data, suggesting good robustness (N = 10 variables, mean absolute difference: r = 0.04, range = [0.0, 0.06])