theannieck

If the fatigue measure can't distinguish that participant-defined tolerance, I'd leave recovery uncertain. Widening the tolerance to accommodate measurement noise would allow fatigue changes beyond what participants consider negligible for the task.

Would that tolerance reflect the fatigue measure's repeatability or a change participants consider negligible for performing the task?

What would count as sufficient recovery from the first assessment before starting the second?

How far apart would the paired assessments occur, given that intervening changes in daily function could complicate interpreting individual score differences?

Alongside completion, I'd specify what difference between settings would matter for daily function in this population, separately from expected measurement noise. That would give “similar scores” an explicit standard for judging whether switching assessment settings could alter the interpretation of someone's function.

The supplied metadata cannot establish whether the review reports such a threshold or links it to daily function in the studied population.