ArticleJournal of the American Academy of Audiology2026
Test-Retest Reliability of the Triangle Completion Test.
Article in Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Psychometric Rigor Before Clinical or Research Implementation.Journal of the American Academy of Audiology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The triangle completion test (TCT) is a clinical measure of spatial navigation that has been associated with vestibular function. There are limited data on its statistical reliability. Purpose: This study aimed to assess the test-retest reliability of the TCT. Research Design: Test-retest study of prospectively recruited participants. Study Sample: Participants aged 60 years or older with no falls within the last 12 months and no history of vestibular dysfunction were recruited. Twenty participants were included, with a mean (standard deviation) age of 69.2 (6.25) years. Participants were equally divided among male and female participants (50.0 percent) and were predominantly White (80.0 percent). Intervention: Patients walked right triangles with leg lengths 1 meter (m) by 2 m by 2.23 m. Participants walked four triangles in the test trial (Trial One) and four triangles in the retest trial (Trial Two) without visual or auditory cues. Data Collection and Analysis: Endpoint error and angular deviation were measured for each triangle. Participants were retested three hours later. Test-retest reliability was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and absolute reliability was assessed using the minimal detectable change (MDC). Results: In Trial One, participants had a mean endpoint error of 80.5 (53.4) centimeters (cm) and a mean angular deviation of 12.5 (4.82) degrees. In Trial Two, participants had a mean endpoint error of 64.4 (23.6) cm and a mean angular deviation of 14.4 (6.91) degrees. Endpoint error had poor reliability (ICC 0.05, 95 percent confidence interval [CI]: -1.41, 0.62), whereas angular deviation had fair reliability (ICC 0.72, 95 percent CI: 0.28, 0.89). The endpoint error had an MDC of 144.7 cm, and the angular deviation had an MDC of 7.13 degrees. Conclusions: TCT angular deviation shows promise for good reliability, whereas endpoint error showed poor reliability. Further refinements to the TCT are needed to improve clinical feasibility and reliability. Clinical Relevance Statement: These results call into question the feasibility and reliability of the TCT and highlight the need for protocol standardization and optimization.
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.