Category (Weight) | N° | Question |
---|---|---|
Methodology (3) | C1 | Are the objectives of the research clearly defined? |
C2 | Are the kinematic outcomes linked with the research objectives? | |
C3 | Is the sample size justified? | |
C4 | Is the statistical analysis detailed? | |
C5 | Are the results linked to clinical measurements (presence of at least one clinical assessment in the outcomes)? | |
C6 | Are the limitation of the study described? | |
C7 | Are the results linked to other outcomes in the literature? | |
Study design (3) | C8 | Is the installation of the participant well described (sitting condition, position at rest)? |
C9 | Are the tasks reliably described so that they can be reproduced? | |
C10 | Are the assessment tools clearly described? (for motion tracking system, brand, acquisition frequency and markers location will be expected) | |
C11 | Are the outcome parameters clearly defined, enough to be recalculated? | |
Population (3) | C12 | Is the most impaired side of the participants given? |
C13 | Is the dominant type of cerebral palsy described (e.g.: spastic, dyskinetic, ataxic)? | |
C14 | Is the functionality of the upper limbs described for the group of participants or for each participant? | |
Reliability (2) | C15 | Is the test–retest/intra session repeatability studied? |
C16 | Is the inter-session repeatability studied? | |
C17 | Is the inter-rater repeatability studied? | |
C18 | Is the sensitivity to change studied? | |
Discriminatory power and ecological validity (1) | C19 | Do the parameters utilized enable discrimination between distinct functional levels of impairment? |
C20 | Does the task resemble to real-life situations (e.g.: Reach and grasp to drink from a cup, playful environment, bilateral box picking up)? |