ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Traditional clinical assessments are used extensively in neurology; however, they can be coarse, which can also make them insensitive to change. Kinarm is a robotic assessment system that has been used for precise assessment of individuals with neurological impairments. However, this precision also leads to the challenge of identifying whether a given change in performance reflects a significant change in an individual's ability or is simply natural variation. Our objective here is to derive confidence intervals and thresholds of significant change for Kinarm Standard Tests™ (KST). METHODS: We assessed participants twice within 15 days on all tasks presently available in KST. We determined the 5-95% confidence intervals for each task parameter, and derived thresholds for significant change. We tested for learning effects and corrected for the false discovery rate (FDR) to identify task parameters with significant learning effects. Finally, we calculated intraclass correlation of type ICC [1, 2] (ICC-C) to quantify consistency across assessments. RESULTS: We recruited an average of 56 participants per task. Confidence intervals for Z-Task Scores ranged between 0.61 and 1.55, and the threshold for significant change ranged between 0.87 and 2.19. We determined that 4/11 tasks displayed learning effects that were significant after FDR correction; these 4 tasks primarily tested cognition or cognitive-motor integration. ICC-C values for Z-Task Scores ranged from 0.26 to 0.76. CONCLUSIONS: The present results provide statistical bounds on individual performance for KST as well as significant changes across repeated testing. Most measures of performance had good inter-rater reliability. Tasks with a higher cognitive burden seemed to be more susceptible to learning effects, which should be taken into account when interpreting longitudinal assessments of these tasks.
