Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Sports Medicine
Published in: Sports Medicine 5/2000

01-11-2000 | Correspondence

Typical Error Versus Limits of Agreement

Authors: Greg Atkinson, Alan Nevill

Published in: Sports Medicine | Issue 5/2000

Login to get access

Excerpt

Hopkins[1] provides a comprehensive narrative on the analysis of measurement error. One section of his paper is devoted to a comparison and contrast of two statistics that quantify error:
1.
The standard error of measurement (SEM). This statistic is also known as the within-subject standard deviation. Hopkins[1] referred to it as ‘typical error’.
 
2.
The 95% limits of agreement (LOA), discussed most recently by Bland and Altman.[2]
 
…
Literature
1.
2.
Bland JM, Altman DG. Measuring agreement in method comparison studies. Stat Methods Med Res 1999; 8: 135–60PubMedCrossRef
3.
Wright EM, Royston P. Calculating reference intervals for laboratory measurements. Stat Methods Med Res 1999; 8: 93–112PubMedCrossRef
4.
Bland M. An introduction to medical statistics. Oxford: University Press, 1995
5.
Altman DG. Practical statistics for medical research. London: Chapman and Hall, 1991
6.
Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986; I: 307–10CrossRef
7.
Royston P, Matthews JNS. Estimation of reference ranges from normal samples. Stat Med 1991; 10: 691–5PubMedCrossRef
8.
Atkinson G, Nevill AM. Statistical methods in assessing measurement error (reliability) in variables relevant to sports medicine. Sports Med 1998; 26: 217–38PubMedCrossRef
9.
Harvill LM. An NCME instructional module on standard error of measurement. Educ Meas Iss Pract 1991; 10 (2): 33–41CrossRef
10.
Thomas JR, Nelson JK. Research methods in physical activity. Champaign (IL): Human Kinetics Books, 1996
11.
Morrow JR, Jackson AW, Disch JG, et al. Measurement and evaluation in human performance. Champaign (IL): Human Kinetics, 1995
12.
Wyrwich KW, Wollinsky FD. Identifying meaningful intra-individual change standards for health-related quality of life measures. J Eval Clin Pract 2000; 6: 39–49PubMedCrossRef
13.
Eliasziw M, Young SL, Woodbury MG, et al. Statistical methodology for the concurrent assessment of interrater and intrarater reliability: using goniometric measurements as an example. Phys Ther 1994; 74: 8: 777–88PubMed
14.
Mathews JN. A formula for the probability of discordant classification in method comparison studies. Stat Med 1997; 16 (6): 705–10CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Typical Error Versus Limits of Agreement
Authors
Greg Atkinson
Alan Nevill
Publication date
01-11-2000
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
Sports Medicine / Issue 5/2000
Print ISSN: 0112-1642
Electronic ISSN: 1179-2035
DOI
https://doi.org/10.2165/00007256-200030050-00005

Other articles of this Issue 5/2000

Sports Medicine 5/2000 Go to the issue

Review Article

Adaptation to a Fat-Rich Diet

Review Article

Insulin Resistance with Aging

Correspondence

The author’s reply

Leading Article

Physiological Issues Surrounding the Performance of Adolescent Athletes

Injury Clinic

Injury Prevention in Women’s Gymnastics