We have located links that may give you full text access.
JOURNAL ARTICLE
RESEARCH SUPPORT, NON-U.S. GOV'T
Test-retest reliability of trunk accelerometry during standing and walking.
Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 1998 November
OBJECTIVE: To investigate repeatability of acceleration measured by a portable, triaxial accelerometer over the lumbar spine as a measure of balance during standing and walking.
DESIGN: Acceleration was measured along three axes and transformed to a horizontal-vertical coordinate system. Standing was tested on two feet, vision unobstructed and obstructed, and on one foot, vision unobstructed. Walking was tested in five different self-selected speeds on even and uneven ground. Retest was performed after 2 days.
SETTING: A flat floor with a 7m uneven mat.
SUBJECTS: Nineteen healthy students.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Standing: Acceleration root mean square (RMS). Walking: Point estimate of acceleration RMS for a reference walking speed (1.2m/sec). All tests: Within-subject standard deviation (sw), intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs).
RESULTS: The sw indicated high absolute test-retest repeatability for standing on two feet. Because of restricted ranges of value, relative reliability was low, however, with ICC(3,1) < .56. For standing on one foot, absolute and relative reliability were highest in the mediolateral direction, with ICC(3,1) = .84. For the walking tests, ICC(3,1) ranged from .79 to .94 for the three axes. Reliability was on the same level for even and uneven ground.
CONCLUSION: The results indicate that accelerometry without need for stationary instrumentation is a reliable method that may be useful for studying standing balance and gait in the clinic.
DESIGN: Acceleration was measured along three axes and transformed to a horizontal-vertical coordinate system. Standing was tested on two feet, vision unobstructed and obstructed, and on one foot, vision unobstructed. Walking was tested in five different self-selected speeds on even and uneven ground. Retest was performed after 2 days.
SETTING: A flat floor with a 7m uneven mat.
SUBJECTS: Nineteen healthy students.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Standing: Acceleration root mean square (RMS). Walking: Point estimate of acceleration RMS for a reference walking speed (1.2m/sec). All tests: Within-subject standard deviation (sw), intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs).
RESULTS: The sw indicated high absolute test-retest repeatability for standing on two feet. Because of restricted ranges of value, relative reliability was low, however, with ICC(3,1) < .56. For standing on one foot, absolute and relative reliability were highest in the mediolateral direction, with ICC(3,1) = .84. For the walking tests, ICC(3,1) ranged from .79 to .94 for the three axes. Reliability was on the same level for even and uneven ground.
CONCLUSION: The results indicate that accelerometry without need for stationary instrumentation is a reliable method that may be useful for studying standing balance and gait in the clinic.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: diagnosis, risk assessment, and treatment.Clinical Research in Cardiology : Official Journal of the German Cardiac Society 2024 April 12
Proximal versus distal diuretics in congestive heart failure.Nephrology, Dialysis, Transplantation 2024 Februrary 30
World Health Organization and International Consensus Classification of eosinophilic disorders: 2024 update on diagnosis, risk stratification, and management.American Journal of Hematology 2024 March 30
Efficacy and safety of pharmacotherapy in chronic insomnia: A review of clinical guidelines and case reports.Mental Health Clinician 2023 October
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app