Mode
Text Size
Log in / Sign up

Chelsea Critical Care Physical Assessment tool shows high content validity and excellent inter-rater reliabilityNew assessment tool shows promise for critically ill patients

AI-generated summary of the cited source, checked by automated accuracy review. How we work

Key Takeaway
Recognize the CPAx as a valid and reliable tool for assessing physical function in critically ill patients.

This meta-analysis evaluated the measurement properties of the Chelsea Critical Care Physical Assessment (CPAx) across 27 studies involving 71 different measurements. The analysis focused on feasibility, content validity, inter-rater reliability, intra-rater reliability, standard error of measurement (SEM), construct validity, and responsiveness in critically ill patients.

The synthesis reported high content validity with a pooled index of 0.94 and excellent inter-rater reliability with a pooled ICC of 0.99 (95% CI 0.98 to 1.00). Construct validity was supported by the acceptance of 26 out of 34 predefined hypotheses (76%). The tool demonstrated acceptable SEM of 1.36 and sufficient smallest detectable change of 3.76. Responsiveness was considered sufficient, with 5 out of 6 predefined hypotheses accepted (83%).

Limitations included low-quality evidence for intra-rater reliability and very low-quality evidence for responsiveness. Despite these limitations in specific sub-metrics, the authors conclude that the CPAx is a valid and reliable instrument for evaluating physical function and activity in critically ill patients. Clinical utility depends on the recognition of varying evidence quality across different measurement properties.

When a patient is critically ill, every movement matters. Doctors need accurate ways to measure how well these patients can move or perform basic physical tasks. A large review of 27 different studies looked at the Chelsea Critical Care Physical Assessment tool, known as CPAx, to see if it works as a reliable measuring stick.

The results show that the CPAx is highly reliable and valid for tracking physical function. It performed well in terms of content validity and showed excellent reliability when different staff members used it to measure patients. The tool also proved feasible to use in clinical settings with small floor and ceiling effects, meaning it can capture a wide range of patient abilities.

While the results are promising, some parts of the data are still early. For example, the evidence for how well the tool tracks changes over time is currently considered very low quality. However, the overall findings suggest that the CPAx is a dependable way to evaluate physical activity in intensive care settings.

What this means for you:
The CPAx tool provides a reliable and valid way to measure physical function in critically ill patients.

Study Details

Study typeMeta analysis
EvidenceLevel 1
PublishedJul 2026
View Original Abstract ↓
QUESTION: What are the measurement properties of the Chelsea Critical Care Physical Assessment tool (CPAx) for evaluating physical function and activity for rehabilitation of patients who are critically ill? METHODS: A systematic search was conducted in five databases to 12 January 2026. Two reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data and assessed quality for each measurement property (COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist); quality of each available measurement property was independently evaluated by any two reviewers who judged the quality as very good, adequate, doubtful or inadequate. Data were synthesised according to COSMIN guidelines, with random-effects meta-analyses for intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). Pooled results were rated and the evidence graded as very low, low, moderate or high quality. RESULTS: 27 studies investigated 71 measurement properties (inadequate to very good). The CPAx was feasible, with small floor and ceiling effects across the trajectory of recovery. Content validity was high (pooled index 0.94; high-quality evidence). The CPAx demonstrated excellent inter-rater reliability (pooled ICC 0.99, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.00, six studies, high-quality evidence), intra-rater reliability (ICC 0.95, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.97, one study, low-quality evidence) and acceptable standard error of measurement (pooled SEM 1.36, five studies) corresponding to a smallest detectable change of 3.76 (sufficient rating, high-quality evidence). Construct validity was supported with 26 out of 34 predefined hypotheses accepted (76%, sufficient, 10 studies, moderate-quality evidence) and responsiveness with five out of six predefined hypotheses accepted (83%, sufficient, five studies, very low-quality evidence). CONCLUSION: Moderate- to high-quality evidence indicates that the CPAx is a valid and reliable instrument for evaluating physical function and activity of critically ill patients. Further research is needed to evaluate responsiveness. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD420250655518.
Free Newsletter

Clinical research that matters. Delivered to your inbox.

Join thousands of clinicians and researchers. No spam, unsubscribe anytime.