↓ Skip to main content

The Case for Using the Repeatability Coefficient When Calculating Test–Retest Reliability

Overview of attention for article published in PLoS ONE, September 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (52nd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
132 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
274 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The Case for Using the Repeatability Coefficient When Calculating Test–Retest Reliability
Published in
PLoS ONE, September 2013
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0073990
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sharmila Vaz, Torbjörn Falkmer, Vaz S, Falkmer T, Passmore AE, Parsons R, Andreou P, Anne Elizabeth Passmore, Richard Parsons, Pantelis Andreou, Susanne Hempel

Abstract

The use of standardised tools is an essential component of evidence-based practice. Reliance on standardised tools places demands on clinicians to understand their properties, strengths, and weaknesses, in order to interpret results and make clinical decisions. This paper makes a case for clinicians to consider measurement error (ME) indices Coefficient of Repeatability (CR) or the Smallest Real Difference (SRD) over relative reliability coefficients like the Pearson's (r) and the Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC), while selecting tools to measure change and inferring change as true. The authors present statistical methods that are part of the current approach to evaluate test-retest reliability of assessment tools and outcome measurements. Selected examples from a previous test-retest study are used to elucidate the added advantages of knowledge of the ME of an assessment tool in clinical decision making. The CR is computed in the same units as the assessment tool and sets the boundary of the minimal detectable true change that can be measured by the tool.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 274 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 8 3%
United States 4 1%
Switzerland 2 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
Malaysia 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Other 1 <1%
Unknown 253 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 72 26%
Researcher 50 18%
Student > Master 40 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 23 8%
Student > Bachelor 20 7%
Other 69 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 72 26%
Psychology 35 13%
Engineering 29 11%
Unspecified 27 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 23 8%
Other 88 32%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 May 2015.
All research outputs
#6,746,013
of 11,406,297 outputs
Outputs from PLoS ONE
#69,472
of 126,622 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#66,694
of 143,076 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLoS ONE
#2,153
of 3,926 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,406,297 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 126,622 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.4. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 143,076 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3,926 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.