AbstractBackground The Reactive Balance Test (RBT) is a functional performance test which tests neurocognitive performance. It could be a valuable addition to research on adaptations related to CAI and for clinical practice. However, its clinometric properties have not been investigated in this population. It has proven reliable in healthy recreational athletes but not yet in patients with chronic ankle instability (CAI).Objective To determine the test-retest, intra-, and inter-rater reliability of the RBT in patients with CAI and the test-retest and inter-rater reliability of the newly developed RBT score sheet.Design Repeated-measures, single-group reliability study.Setting Controlled laboratory study.Participants We included 27 participants with CAI using the International Ankle Consortium guidelines. Interventions The independent variables are the RBT's test-retest, intra-rater and inter-rater reliability. Main Outcome Measurements Multiple reliability measures, including Pearson r, intra-class correlations (ICC), standard error of measurement (SEM), standard error of prediction (SEP) and minimal detectable change (MDC), were used to evaluate the reliability of the RBT's outcome measures (visuomotor response time (VMRT) and accuracy). We also assessed the test-retest and inter-rater reliability of the RBT score sheet using the same measures.Results The ICC measures for test-retest reliability were similar for accuracy (0.609) and VMRT (0.594). Intra-rater reliability had high correlations and ICCs for accuracy (r=0.816, ICC=0.815) and VMRT (r=0.802, ICC=0.800). Inter-rater reliability had a higher ICC for VMRT (0.868) than for accuracy (0.690).Conclusions The RBT and its associated score sheet showed moderate to good reliability in assessing neurocognitive performance in patients with (CAI). These reliable assessments indirectly support athlete health and injury prevention by providing consistent tools for identifying individuals at risk, potentially aiding in targeted interventions to enhance athlete well-being and safety.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
A 2024 study studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: