Skip to main content

Table 2 Quality assessment of included reliability studies using QAREL

From: Reliability and validity of physical examination tests for the assessment of ankle instability

Study

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

Alonso et al. [43]

Y

Y

Y

U

NA

N

U

U

Y

Y

Y

Großterlinden et al. [50]

Y

Y

U

NA

Y

N

N

U

Y

U

Y

Hosseinian et al. [53]

Y

Y

U

NA

Y

U

U

U

Y

U

Y

Li et al. [52]

Y

U

U

NA

Y

Y

U

U

U

Y

Y

Parasher et al. [17]

Y

U

U

U

NA

U

U

Y

Y

Y

Y

Van Dijk et al. [54]

Y

Y

Y

NA

Y

U

U

N

Y

U

Y

Vaseenon et al. [51]

N

Y

U

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

U

Y

Y

Wilkin et al. [19]

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

  1. Y = yes, N = no, U = unclear, N/A = not applicable
  2. Item 1: Was the test evaluated in a sample of subjects who were representative of those to whom the authors intended the results to be applied?
  3. Item 2: Was the test performed by raters who were representative of those to whom the authors intended the results to be applied?
  4. Item 3: Were raters blinded to the findings of other raters during the study?
  5. Item 4: Were raters blinded to their own prior findings of the test under evaluation?
  6. Item 5: Were raters blinded to the results of the reference standard for the target disorder (or variable) being evaluated?
  7. Item 6: Were raters blinded to clinical information that was not intended to be provided as part of the testing procedure or study design?
  8. Item 7: Were raters blinded to additional cues that were not part of the test?
  9. Item 8: Was the order of examination varied?
  10. Item 9: Was the time interval between repeated measurements compatible with the stability (or theoretical stability) of the variable being measured?
  11. Item 10: Was the test applied correctly and interpreted appropriately?
  12. Item 11: Were appropriate statistical measures of agreement used?
Back to article page

Chiropractic & Manual Therapies

ISSN: 2045-709X