Test-Retest Reliability and Minimal Detectable Change of the Test of Visual Perceptual Skills-Third Edition in Patients With Stroke



      To examine the test-retest reliability, calculate minimal detectable change (MDC), and report internal consistency of the Test of Visual Perceptual Skills-Third Edition (TVPS-3) in patients with stroke.


      Repeated-measures design (at an interval of 2wk).


      Medical center.


      Patients (N=50) with chronic stroke who completed the TVPS-3.


      Not applicable.

      Main Outcome Measures

      TVPS-3 that contains 7 subscales, namely, visual discrimination, visual memory, spatial relations, form constancy, sequential memory, visual figure-ground, and visual closure.


      The intraclass correlation coefficient value of the overall scale was .92 and those of the 7 subscales were .53 to .82. The MDC values of the overall scale and the subscales were 18.1 and 5.4 to 7.1, respectively. The MDC% value of the overall scale was 16.2% (<30%), showing acceptable random measurement error. However, the MDC% values of the subscales were 33.7% to 44.1% (>30%), indicating substantial random measurement errors. The Cronbach α of the 7 subscales were .71 to .89, indicating good internal consistency.


      Our results showed that the overall scale of the TVPS-3 had satisfactory test-retest reliability. However, the subscales demonstrated insufficient test-retest reliability. Therefore, the subscales should be used cautiously to explain the test results over repeated assessments in patients with stroke.


      List of abbreviations:

      BI (Barthel Index), ICC (intraclass correlation coefficient), MDC (minimal detectable change), TVPS-3 (Test of Visual Perceptual Skills-Third Edition)
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment


      Subscribe to Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect


        • Cooke D.M.
        • Mcjenna K.
        • Fleming J.
        Development of a standarized occupational therapy screening tool for visual perception in adults.
        Scand J Occup Ther. 2005; 12: 59-71
        • Warren M.
        Evaluation and treatment of visual deficits following brain injury.
        6th ed. Mosby Elsevier, St Louis2006
        • Edmans J.A.
        The recovery of perceptual problems after stroke and the impact on daily life.
        Clin Rehabil. 1991; 4: 301-310
        • Mercier L.
        • Audet T.
        • Hebert R.
        • et al.
        Impact of motor, cognitive, and perceptual disorders on ability to perform activities of daily living after stroke.
        Stroke. 2001; 32: 2602-2608
        • Jones S.A.
        • Shinton R.A.
        Improving outcome in stroke patients with visual problems.
        Age Ageing. 2006; 35: 560-565
        • Brown T.
        • Elliot S.
        • Bourne R.
        • et al.
        The convergent validity of the Developmental Test of Visual Perception-Adolescent and Adults, Motor-Free Visual Perception Test-Third Edition and Test of Visual Perceptional Skills (non-motor)-Third Edition when used with adults.
        Br J Occup Ther. 2012; 75: 134-143
        • Brown T.
        Are motor-free visual perception skill constructs predictive of visual-motor integration skill constructs?.
        Hong Kong J Occup Ther. 2012; 22: 48-59
        • Su C.Y.
        • Chien T.H.
        • Cheng K.F.
        • et al.
        Performance of older adults with and without cerebrovascular accident on the test of visual-perceptual skills.
        Am J Occup Ther. 1995; 49: 491-499
        • Gardner M.
        Test of visual-perceptual skills (non-motor) revised manual.
        Academic Therapy Publications, Novato1996
        • Gardner M.
        Test of visual-perceptual skills (non-motor) (upper level) revised manual.
        Psychological and Educational Publications, Inc., Hydesville1997
        • Martin N.A.
        Test of Visual Perceptual Skills-Third Edition.
        Academic Therapy Publications, Novato2006
        • Walter S.D.
        • Eliasziw M.
        • Donner A.
        Sample size and optimal designs for reliability studies.
        Stat Med. 1998; 17: 101-110
        • Hopkins W.G.
        Measures of reliability in sports medicine and science.
        Sports Med. 2000; 30: 1-15
        • Atkinson G.
        • Nevill A.
        Typical error versus limits of agreement.
        Sports Med. 2000; 30: 375-381
        • Wade D.T.
        • Hewer R.L.
        Functional abilities after stroke: measurement, natural history and prognosis.
        J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1987; 50: 177-182
        • Hsueh I.P.
        • Lee M.M.
        • Hsieh C.L.
        Psychometric characteristics of the Barthel activities of daily living index in stroke patients.
        J Formos Med Assoc. 2001; 100: 526-532
        • Portney L.G.
        • Watkins M.P.
        Foundations of clinical research: applications to practice.
        Pearson Education, Inc., Upper Saddle River2009
        • Nunnally J.C.
        • Bernstein I.H.
        Psychometric theory.
        3rd ed. McGraw-Hill, New York1994
        • Jacobson N.S.
        • Follette W.C.
        • Revenstorf D.
        Psychotherapy outcome research: methods for reporting variability and evaluating clinical significance.
        Behav Ther. 1984; 15: 336-352
        • Copay A.G.
        • Subach B.R.
        • Glassman S.D.
        • et al.
        Understanding the minimum clinically important difference: a review of concepts and methods.
        Spine J. 2007; 7: 541-546
        • Haley S.M.
        • Fragala-Pinkham M.A.
        Interpreting change scores of tests and measures used in physical therapy.
        Phys Ther. 2006; 86: 735-743
        • Flansbjer U.B.
        • Holmback A.M.
        • Downham D.
        • et al.
        Reliability of gait performance tests in men and women with hemiparesis after stroke.
        J Rehabil Med. 2005; 37: 75-82
        • Lin J.H.
        • Hsu M.J.
        • Sheu C.F.
        • et al.
        Psychometric comparisons of 4 measures for assessing upper-extremity function in people with stroke.
        Phys Ther. 2009; 89: 840-850
        • Huang S.L.
        • Hsieh C.L.
        • Wu R.M.
        • et al.
        Minimal detectable change of the timed “up & go” test and the dynamic gait index in people with Parkinson disease.
        Phys Ther. 2011; 91: 114-121
        • Cohen J.
        Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences.
        2nd ed. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale1988
        • Aaronson N.
        • Alonso J.
        • Burnam A.
        • et al.
        Assessing health status and quality-of-life instruments: attributes and review criteria.
        Qual Life Res. 2002; 11: 193-205
        • McLeod L.D.
        • Coon C.D.
        • Martin S.A.
        • et al.
        Interpreting patient-reported outcome results: US FDA guidance and emerging methods.
        Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2011; 11: 163-169
        • Schünemann H.J.
        • Guyatt G.H.
        Commentary—goodbye M(C)ID! Hello MID, where do you come from?.
        Health Serv Res. 2005; 40: 593-597