ArticleArchives of physical medicine and rehabilitation2022
Intra- and Interrater Reliability of Remote Assessment of Transfers by Wheelchair Users Using the Transfer Assessment Instrument (Version 4.0).
Article in Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Development and content validity of the caregiver assisted transfer technique instrument.Assistive technology : the official journal of RESNA · 2025Article
- Reliability of home-based remote and self-assessment of transfers using the Transfer Assessment Instrument among wheelchair users with spinal cord injury.Spinal cord series and cases · 2023Article
- Risk Factors Associated With Falls and Fall-Related Injuries Among Wheelchair Users With Spinal Cord Injury.Archives of rehabilitation research and clinical translation · 2022Article
- Intra- and Interrater Reliability of Remote Assessment of Transfers by Wheelchair Users Using the Transfer Assessment Instrument (Version 4.0).Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation · 2022Article
- Changes in Internet Use Over Time Among Individuals with Traumatic Spinal Cord Injury.Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the reliability, standard error of measurement, minimum detectable change, and item-level consistency of the Transfer Assessment Instrument (TAI) version 4.0 when used to evaluate transfer quality remotely.
designParticipants transferred from their wheelchair to a mat table (transfer 1), repeated this after a 10-minute delay to assess intrarater reliability (transfer 2), and repeated this 1-2 days later to assess test-retest reliability (transfer 3). Each transfer was scored in person by 4 raters and asynchronously by a remote clinician rater.
setting2017 National Veterans Wheelchair Games.
participantsConvenience sample of 44 full-time wheelchair users (N=44).
interventionsNot applicable.
main outcome measuresTAI total score, subscores (wheelchair setup, body setup, flight/landing), and item scores (15 items).
resultsModerate to excellent reliability was found when scoring remotely for TAI total and subscores for intrarater (intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC(3,1)=0.687-0.854), test-retest (ICC(3,1)=0.695-0.836), and interrater reliability (ICC(3,5)=0.746-0.962). Remote rater total score and flight/landing subscore were greater (indicating higher transfer quality) compared to the average in-person raters (P=.021 and P=.005, respectively). There were no differences between transfers 1-3 in remote rater scores. Item-level percentage agreement between the remote rater and in-person exceeded the 75% cutoff for clinical utility for all items.
conclusionsThe TAI is a reliable outcome measure for assessing transfer technique remotely.
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.