Clinician-administered performance-based tests via telehealth in people with chronic lower limb musculoskeletal disorders: Test-retest reliability and agreement with in-person assessment.

Introduction: Uptake of telehealth has surged, yet no previous studies have evaluated the clinimetric properties of clinician-administered performance-based tests of function, strength, and balance via telehealth in people with chronic lower limb musculoskeletal pain. This study investigated the: (i) test-retest reliability of performance-based tests via telehealth, and (ii) agreement between scores obtained via telehealth and in-person.
Methods: Fifty-seven adults aged ≥45 years with chronic lower limb musculoskeletal pain underwent three testing sessions: one in-person and two via videoconferencing. Tests included 30-s chair stand, 5-m fast-paced walk, stair climb, timed up and go, step test, timed single-leg stance, and calf raises. Test-retest reliability and agreement were assessed via intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC; lower limit of 95% confidence interval (CI) ≥0.70 considered acceptable). ICCs were interpreted as poor (<0.5), moderate (0.5-0.75), good (0.75-0.9), or excellent (>0.9).
Results: Test-retest reliability was good-excellent with acceptable lower CI for stair climb test, timed up and go, right leg timed single-leg stance, and calf raises (ICC = 0.84-0.91, 95% CI lower limit = 0.71-0.79). Agreement between telehealth and in-person was good-excellent with acceptable lower CI for 30-s chair stand, left leg single-leg stance, and calf raises (ICC = 0.82-0.91, 95% CI lower limit = 0.71-0.85).
Discussion: Stair climb, timed up and go, right leg timed single-leg stance, and calf raise tests have acceptable reliability for use via telehealth in research and clinical practice. If re-testing via a different mode (telehealth/in-person), clinicians and researchers should consider using the 30-s chair stand test, left leg timed single-leg stance, and calf raise tests.
Competing Interests: Declaration of conflicting interestsThe author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.