title: The case for using the repeatability coefficient when calculating test-retest reliability.
abstract: The use of standardised tools is an essential component of evidence-based practice. Reliance on standardised tools places demands on clinicians to understand their properties, strengths, and weaknesses, in order to interpret results and make clinical decisions. This paper makes a case for clinicians to consider measurement error (ME) indices Coefficient of Repeatability (CR) or the Smallest Real Difference (SRD) over relative reliability coefficients like the Pearson's (r) and the Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC), while selecting tools to measure change and inferring change as true. The authors present statistical methods that are part of the current approach to evaluate test-retest reliability of assessment tools and outcome measurements. Selected examples from a previous test-retest study are used to elucidate the added advantages of knowledge of the ME of an assessment tool in clinical decision making. The CR is computed in the same units as the assessment tool and sets the boundary of the minimal detectable true change that can be measured by the tool.
authors.affiliation: School of Occupational Therapy and Social Work, Centre for Research into Disability and Society, Curtin University, Perth, Western Australia, Australia.
authors.forename: Sharmila
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Vaz
authors.forename: Torbjörn
authors.initials: T
authors.lastname: Falkmer
authors.forename: Anne Elizabeth
authors.initials: AE
authors.lastname: Passmore
authors.forename: Richard
authors.initials: R
authors.lastname: Parsons
authors.forename: Pantelis
authors.initials: P
authors.lastname: Andreou
mesh_terms: D001242:Assertiveness; D002648:Child; D004645:Empathy; D019317:Evidence-Based Medicine / Q000592:standards*; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008962:Models, Theoretical; D015203:Reproducibility of Results
references.citation: Sports Med. 2000 Jul;30(1):1-15
references.pmid: 10907753
references.citation: Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2003 Jul;22(1):85-93
references.pmid: 12858311
references.citation: Psychol Bull. 1979 Mar;86(2):420-8
references.pmid: 18839484
references.citation: Disabil Rehabil. 1993 Jan-Mar;15(1):19-23
references.pmid: 8431587
references.citation: Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2005 Sep;84(9):719-23
references.pmid: 16141752
references.citation: BMJ. 1996 Jul 6;313(7048):41-2
references.pmid: 8664775
references.citation: Qual Life Res. 2001;10(7):571-8
references.pmid: 11822790
references.citation: Clin Rehabil. 1998 Jun;12(3):187-99
references.pmid: 9688034
references.citation: PLoS One. 2013 Sep 09;8(9):e73924
references.pmid: 24040116
references.citation: Sports Med. 1998 Oct;26(4):217-38
references.pmid: 9820922
references.citation: Phys Ther. 1989 Dec;69(12):1025-33
references.pmid: 2685841
references.citation: J Chronic Dis. 1987;40(2):171-8
references.pmid: 3818871
references.citation: Stat Methods Med Res. 1999 Jun;8(2):135-60
references.pmid: 10501650