ArticlePloS one2020
Investigating the test-retest reliability of Illinois Agility Test for wheelchair users.
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effects of kinesiology taping leggings on exercise performance and physiological responses during CrossFit training in women aged 20-30 years.Journal of exercise rehabilitation · 2025Article
- Steering-by-leaning facilitates intuitive movement control and improved efficiency in manual wheelchairs.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2023Article
- High-Level Mobility of Trans-Tibial Prosthesis Users Wearing Commercial and sPace Energy-Storing Prosthetic Feet.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The Illinois Agility Test (IAT) is a standard agility course used to assess and train able-bodied athletes as well as wheelchair-sport athletes and rehabilitation of wheelchair users. It has been shown to be a reliable and valid tool to assess the able-bodied population, but the reliability of this test for assessing wheelchair propulsion has never been shown. The purpose of this study is to investigate the test-retest reliability of IAT to assess wheelchair propulsion. In this paper, the test-retest reliability of using IAT for wheelchair users is found for peak and average velocity, acceleration, tangential and total force of the push, each for the left and the right wheel. Each of these variables was found for thirty-two decisive points throughout the IAT path. The Intra-class Correlation Coefficient (ICC) was found to be very strong for 15 out of 16 variables. The average ICC was 89% and the average 95% confidence interval was [44% 96%]. In addition, thirty-seven other significant propulsion parameters were found that are clinically important, such as the number of pushes participants take to go around cones on the right, relative to turning around the cones on the left. Also, all thirty-seven variables were compared between the two sessions using four separate MANOVAs; the results showed no significant difference between IAT performed in the two sessions which were at least one week apart. This, in turn, backs the reliability of IAT for wheelchair users. These results are sufficient evidence to show that IAT is a reliable tool to test wheelchair agility for fifteen variables tested for non-wheelchair users. Since experienced wheelchair users are much more consistent in wheelchair propulsion compared to non-wheelchair-users, the results of this study show that IAT can be used as a reliable tool to assess and train wheelchair users, both for clinical and athletic applications.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.