Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
Volume 88, Issue 5 , Pages 632-637, May 2007

Reliability of the Clinical Outcome Variables Scale When Administered Via Telephone to Assess Mobility in People With Spinal Cord Injury

  • Ruth N. Barker, PhD

      Affiliations

    • Spinal Outreach Team, Queensland Spinal Cord Injuries Service, Princess Alexandra Hospital, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
  • ,
  • Delena I. Amsters, MPhyt

      Affiliations

    • Spinal Outreach Team, Queensland Spinal Cord Injuries Service, Princess Alexandra Hospital, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
  • ,
  • Melissa D. Kendall, MHumSrv

      Affiliations

    • Transitional Rehabilitation Program, Queensland Spinal Cord Injuries Service, Princess Alexandra Hospital, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
  • ,
  • Kiley J. Pershouse, BSocWk

      Affiliations

    • Spinal Outreach Team, Queensland Spinal Cord Injuries Service, Princess Alexandra Hospital, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
    • Corresponding Author InformationReprint requests to Kiley J. Pershouse, BSocWk, Spinal Outreach Team, PO Box 6053, Buranda, Queensland, 4102, Australia
  • ,
  • Terry P. Haines, PhD

      Affiliations

    • University of Queensland and Princess Alexandra Hospital, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.

Abstract 

Barker RN, Amsters DI, Kendall MD, Pershouse KJ, Haines TP. Reliability of the Clinical Outcome Variables Scale when administered via telephone to assess mobility in people with spinal cord injury.

Objective

To examine the equivalence reliability and test-retest reliability of the Clinical Outcome Variables Scale (COVS) when administered via telephone (TCOVS) to people with spinal cord injury (SCI).

Design

Equivalence (telephone administration vs in-person) and test-retest reliability study.

Setting

Assessments conducted in participants’ home environment.

Participants

Equivalence reliability was examined in a convenience sample of 37 people with a diagnosis of traumatic SCI who had been discharged from the Queensland Spinal Injuries Unit to the community. In a separate group of participants, test-retest reliability of COVS when administered via telephone was examined in 43 people with SCI who were randomly selected from the Queensland Spinal Cord Injuries Service records.

Interventions

Not applicable.

Main Outcome Measures

Reliability was assessed at the subscale and composite score level using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC2,1) and Bland-Altman limits of agreement.

Results

Reliability was good for TCOVS and COVS for the composite score (ICC=.98), mobility subscale (ICC=.97), and ambulation subscale (ICC=.99). Reliability was also good for TCOVS test and retest assessments for the composite score (ICC=1), mobility subscale (ICC=1), and ambulation subscale (ICC=1). For all comparisons, most data points were within the 95% limits of agreement and the width of limits of agreement were considered to be clinically acceptable.

Conclusions

The study findings confirm the equivalence and test-retest reliability of the TCOVS in an SCI population when administered by trained raters.

Key Words: Outcome assessment (health care), Rehabilitation, Reproducibility of results, Spinal cord injuries, Telephone

 

 Supported by the Queensland Health and the Centre of National Research on Disability and Rehabilitation.

 No commercial party having a direct financial interest in the results of the research supporting this article has or will confer a benefit upon the author(s) or upon any organization with which the author(s) is/are associated.

PII: S0003-9993(07)00169-4

doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2007.02.032

Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
Volume 88, Issue 5 , Pages 632-637, May 2007