ArticlePhysiotherapy research international : the journal for researchers and clinicians in physical therapy2026
Scoring Method, Testing Method and Learning Effect of the Upper Extremity Motor Coordination Test.
Article in Physiotherapy research international : the journal for researchers and clinicians in physical therapy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the best scoring method (first trial, mean of the first and last two trials, and mean of three trials), best testing method (direct/video), and learning effect of the Upper Extremity Motor Coordination Test (UEMOCOT).
methodsThe UEMOCOT was performed three times and recorded using a video camera. The learning effects investigated the differences across the three trials, using ANOVAs, which was also used to investigate the best scoring method. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC-2.1) verified the agreement between direct/video observations.
resultsSignificant differences were found between the scoring methods (7.7 ≤ F ≤ 28.1, p < 0.001), and across the three trials (5.3 ≤ F ≤ 22.2, p < 0.010). There was a very high agreement between the direct and video scores (0.94 ≤ ICC ≤ 0.98).
conclusionAlthough the results for the best scoring method and learning effect were statistically significant, the values were lower than the smallest real difference previously established, suggesting that only one measurement is necessary, with no clinically relevant learning effect. In addition, it can be scored personally and by video.
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.