Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by EISEN, E. A
Right arrow Articles by POTHIER, L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by EISEN, E. A
Right arrow Articles by POTHIER, L.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© 1988 Oxford University Press

research-article

Defining Measurement Precision for Effort Dependent Tests: The Case of Three Neurobehavioural Tests

ELLEN A EISEN*, RICHARD A LETZ**, DAVID H WEGMAN{dagger}, EDWARD L BAKER, JR{ddagger} and LUCILLE POTHIER*

*Occupational Health Program, Harvard School of Public Health Boston MA, USA
**Environmental Science Laboratory, Mount Sinai School of Medicine New York, NY, USA
{dagger}Department of Work Environment, College of Engineering, University of Lowell Lowell, MA, USA
{ddagger}National Institute of Occupational Safety & Health Atlanta, GA, USA

Elsen E A (Occupational Health Program, Harvard School of Public Hearth, Boston MA, USA), Letz R A, Wegman D H, Baker E L Jr and Pothier L Defining measurement precision for effort dependent tests: the case of three neurobehavioural tests. International Journal of Epidemiology 1988, 17: 920–926.

For effort dependent tests, the estimation of measurement precision (reproducibility) is complicated by learning effects and submaximel efforts which inflate the variance of repeated trials. To illustrate an approach to the estimation problem, precision was evaluated for three neurobehavioural tests based on the responses of 76 boatbuilders tested on four separate test occasions within a one-week period. The average Coefficient of Variation (CV) for repeated trials within a test session was 6%, 16% and 13% for the Continuous Performance Test (CPT), Symbol-Digit substitution teat (SDS) and the Hand-Eye motor-coordination test (HEM), respectively. In order to adjust for the effects of learning, the first trial(s) of a session were excluded from the calculation of performance level and its precision. This adjustment for learning significantly improved the precision for SDS and HEM to a CV of 8%. Inspection of the distributions of best efforts by trial number indicated that dropping the early trial(s) eliminated the best efforts of 34%, 22% and 7% of the subjects on the three tests respectively. When the worst two trials were excluded regardless of order, precision improved significantly to less than 5% for all three tests. On the basis of these results, a 5% precision rule for CPT and a 10% precision rule for SDS and HEM are provisionally recommended. The test results of subjects unable to meet this criterion should be identified, but in order to avoid selection bias, they should be analysed separately rather than excluded.

Received 1 March 1988


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.