Table 2 Quality assessment criteria gathered in categories

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)?