Skip to main content

Table 4 Analysis of agreement

From: Modified Talk Test: a Randomized Cross-over Trial Investigating the Comparative Utility of Two “Talk Tests” for Determining Aerobic Training Zones in Overweight and Obese Patients

Variable Mean of differences 90% CI Chances of true differences (%) Effect size Cohen’s dadj (90% CI) Magnitude of effect p-value
Traditional talk test: last stage where the answer was “yes”
 WTTT/LY vs WVT1 − 22.4 − 31.3/− 13.3 Unlikely equivalent (87.3/12.7/0.0) − 0.85 (− 1.22/− 0.48) Moderate 0.001
 WTTT/LY vs WATT/2–3 − 21.1 − 27.5/− 14.5 Unlikely equivalent (90.3/9.7/0.0) − 0.78 (− 1.01/− 0.55) Moderate 0.000
 WTTT/LY vs WATT/4–5 7.1 0.4/13.7 Very likely equivalent (0.0/97.1/2.9) 0.31 (0.07/0.56) Trivial 0.039
Traditional talk test: first stage where the answer was “no”
 WTTT/FN vs WVT2 − 2.9 − 10.9/5.1 Most likely equivalent (0.1/99.9/0.0) − 0.10 (− 0.34/0.13) Trivial 0.455
 WTTT/FN vs WATT/4–5 − 41.6 − 49.7/− 33.3 Most unlikely equivalent (100.0/0.0/0.0) − 1.36 (− 1.60/− 1.12) Large 0.000
 WTTT/FN vs WATT/6–7 − 13.9 − 18.7/− 9.1 Very likely equivalent (1.9/98.1/0.0) − 0.41 (− 0.56/− 0.25) Trivial 0.000
Alternative talk test: visual analog scale
 WATT/2–3 vs WVT1 − 1.3 − 8.2/5.6 Very likely equivalent (0.7/99.1/0.2) − 0.06 (− 0.40/0.28) Trivial 0.763
 WATT/4–5 vs WVT1 − 29.5 − 37.6/− 21.2 Most unlikely equivalent (99.8/0.2/0.0) − 1.34 (− 1.73/− 0.95) Large 0.000
 WATT/4–5 vs WVT2 38.7 27.1/50.2 Most unlikely equivalent (0.0/0.4/99.6) 1.18 (0.84/1.52) Moderate 0.000
 WATT/6–7 vs WVT2 11.1 2.8/19.2 Very likely equivalent (0.0/97.6/2.4) 0.29 (0.04/0.54) Trivial 0.058
  1. Abbreviations: SWC smallest worthwhile change, WTTT/LY watts of the traditional talk test in the last stage where the answer was “yes”, WVT1 watts at ventilatory threshold 1, WATT watts of the alternative talk test, WTTT/FN watts of the traditional talk test in the first stage where the answer was “no”, WVT2 watts at ventilatory threshold 2, W watts