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) | ||