Investigation of Study Procedures to Estimate Sensitivity and Reliability of a Virtual Physical Assessment Developed for Workplace Concussions: a Feasibility Study (Preprint)
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
<sec> <title>BACKGROUND</title> Virtual approaches to workplace concussion assessment have demonstrated value to end users. The feasibility of administering physical concussion assessment measures in a virtual context has been minimally explored and there is limited information on important psychometric properties of physical assessment measures used in virtual contexts. </sec> <sec> <title>OBJECTIVE</title> The objectives of this feasibility study were to: determine recruitment capability for a future larger-scale study aimed at determining sensitivity and reliability of the virtual assessment, time required to complete study assessments, acceptability of virtual assessment to people with brain injuries and clinicians, and to document preliminary results of sensitivity of the virtual assessment when compared to the in-person assessment and to estimate the preliminary inter-rater and intra-rater reliability of the virtual assessments to inform procedures of a future larger-scale study that is adequately powered to reliably estimate these parameters of interest. </sec> <sec> <title>METHODS</title> People living with acquired brain injury attended two assessments (one in-person and one virtual) in a randomized order. The measures administered in these assessments included: the finger-to-nose test, balance testing, the Vestibular/Ocular Motor Screening (VOMS) tool including documentation of change in symptoms and distance for near point convergence (NPC), saccades, cervical spine range of motion, and evaluation of effort. Both assessments occurred at the Ottawa Hospital Rehabilitation Centre. After the assessments, a clinician different from the person who completed the original assessments then viewed and documented findings independently on the recordings of the virtual assessment. The same second clinician viewed the recording again approximately one month following initial observation. </sec> <sec> <title>RESULTS</title> Rate of recruitment was 61% of people approached, with a total of 20 patient-participants included in the feasibility study. Three clinicians participated as assessors. Length of time required to complete the in-person and virtual assessment procedures averaged nine and 13 minutes, respectively. The majority of clinician and patient-participants agreed or strongly agreed that they were confident in the findings on both in-person and virtual assessments. Feedback obtained revolved around technology (e.g. screen size), lighting, and fatigue of participants in the second assessment. Preliminary estimates of sensitivity of the virtual assessment ranged from poor (finger-to-nose testing: 0.0) to excellent (NPC: 1.0). Preliminary estimates of reliability of the virtual assessment ranged from poor (balance testing, saccades, and range of motion: Kappa=0.38-0.49) to excellent (VOMS change in symptoms: Kappa=1.0). </sec> <sec> <title>CONCLUSIONS</title> The results of this feasibility study indicate that our study procedures are feasible and acceptable to participants. Certain measures show promising psychometric properties (reliability and sensitivity); however, wide confidence intervals due to the small sample size limit the ability to draw definitive conclusions. A planned follow-up study will expand on this work and include a sufficiently large sample to estimate these important properties with acceptable precision. </sec> <sec> <title>INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT</title> RR2-10.2196/preprints.57663 </sec>
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,015 | 0,010 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».