Skip to main content

Table 5 Methodological quality assessment

From: The reliability of WorkWell Systems Functional Capacity Evaluation: a systematic review

Authors Methodological quality by type of reliability
Inter-rater Intra-rater or test-retest  
  Methodological quality Worst scores Methodological quality Worst scores
Smith [19] Good 4) Assumable that the measurements were independent Poor 7) Time interval not appropriate
Gardener and McKenna [20] Good    8) Assumable that test conditions were similar
Gross and Battie [23] Poor 3) Small sample size (< 30) Poor 3) Small sample size (< 30)
7) Time interval not appropriate
Reneman et al. [24] Poor 11) Only percentage agreement calculated Poor 7) Time interval not appropriate;
11) Only percentage agreement calculated
Reneman et al. [25]    Poor 7) Time interval not appropriate
Brouwer et al. [12]    Poor 6) Patients were not stable
Reneman et al. [26]    Poor 3) Small sample size (< 30)
Reneman et al. [28]a Good    3) Good sample size (50–99)c
Reneman et al. [28]b Good    3) Good sample size (50–99)c
Soer et al. [29]    Fair 3) Moderate sample size (30–49)
van Ittersum et al. [30]    Poor 7) Time interval not appropriate
Trippolini et al. [32]    Fair 3) Moderate sample size (30–49)
  1. aHealthy subjects; bPatients with chronic low back pain; cNumber of taped observations were appraised.