University of Wolverhampton
Browse
Collection All
bullet
bullet
bullet
bullet
Listed communities
bullet
bullet
bullet
bullet
bullet
bullet
bullet
bullet
bullet
bullet
bullet
bullet
bullet

Wolverhampton Intellectual Repository and E-Theses > School of Sport, Performing Arts and Leisure > Research Centre for Sport, Exercise and Performance > Learning and Teaching in Sport, Exercise and Performance > Statistical methods for assessing measurement error (reliability) in variables relevant to sports medicine.

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/2436/112692
    Del.icio.us     LinkedIn     Citeulike     Connotea     Facebook     Stumble it!



Title: Statistical methods for assessing measurement error (reliability) in variables relevant to sports medicine.
Authors: Atkinson, Greg
Nevill, Alan M.
Citation: Sports medicine, 26 (4): 217-38
Publisher: Adis International Limited.
Journal: Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.)
Issue Date: 1998
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/2436/112692
PubMed ID: 9820922
Additional Links: http://adisonline.com/sportsmedicine/pages/default.aspx
http://www.swetswise.com/eAccess/viewTitleIssues.do?titleID=190945&year=1998
Abstract: Minimal measurement error (reliability) during the collection of interval- and ratio-type data is critically important to sports medicine research. The main components of measurement error are systematic bias (e.g. general learning or fatigue effects on the tests) and random error due to biological or mechanical variation. Both error components should be meaningfully quantified for the sports physician to relate the described error to judgements regarding 'analytical goals' (the requirements of the measurement tool for effective practical use) rather than the statistical significance of any reliability indicators. Methods based on correlation coefficients and regression provide an indication of 'relative reliability'. Since these methods are highly influenced by the range of measured values, researchers should be cautious in: (i) concluding acceptable relative reliability even if a correlation is above 0.9; (ii) extrapolating the results of a test-retest correlation to a new sample of individuals involved in an experiment; and (iii) comparing test-retest correlations between different reliability studies. Methods used to describe 'absolute reliability' include the standard error of measurements (SEM), coefficient of variation (CV) and limits of agreement (LOA). These statistics are more appropriate for comparing reliability between different measurement tools in different studies. They can be used in multiple retest studies from ANOVA procedures, help predict the magnitude of a 'real' change in individual athletes and be employed to estimate statistical power for a repeated-measures experiment. These methods vary considerably in the way they are calculated and their use also assumes the presence (CV) or absence (SEM) of heteroscedasticity. Most methods of calculating SEM and CV represent approximately 68% of the error that is actually present in the repeated measurements for the 'average' individual in the sample. LOA represent the test-retest differences for 95% of a population. The associated Bland-Altman plot shows the measurement error schematically and helps to identify the presence of heteroscedasticity. If there is evidence of heteroscedasticity or non-normality, one should logarithmically transform the data and quote the bias and random error as ratios. This allows simple comparisons of reliability across different measurement tools. It is recommended that sports clinicians and researchers should cite and interpret a number of statistical methods for assessing reliability. We encourage the inclusion of the LOA method, especially the exploration of heteroscedasticity that is inherent in this analysis. We also stress the importance of relating the results of any reliability statistic to 'analytical goals' in sports medicine.
Type: Article
Language: en
MeSH: Bias (Epidemiology)
Data Collection
Humans
Regression Analysis
Reproducibility of Results
Sports Medicine
Statistics as Topic
ISSN: 0112-1642
Appears in Collections: Learning and Teaching in Sport, Exercise and Performance

Files in This Item:

There are no files associated with this item.



Related articles on PubMed
bullet
bullet
bullet
Typical error versus limits of agreement.
Atkinson G, Nevill A
2000 Nov
bullet
bullet
Adjustment for regression dilution in epidemiological regression analyses.
Knuiman MW, Divitini ML, Buzas JS, Fitzgerald PE
1998 Jan
See all 768 articles

All Items in WIRE are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

 

Fairtrade - Guarantees a better deal for Third World Producers

University of Wolverhampton, Wulfruna Street, Wolverhampton, WV1 1LY

Course enquiries: 0800 953 3222, General enquiries: 01902 321000,
Email: enquiries@wlv.ac.uk | Freedom of Information | Disclaimer and copyright | Website feedback | The University as a charity

OR Logo Powered by Open Repository | Cookies