Jennifer N. Bartloff , Kreg G. Gruben , Colin R. Grove
{"title":"Reliability and validity of the force intersection point in the assessment of human quiet standing balance","authors":"Jennifer N. Bartloff , Kreg G. Gruben , Colin R. Grove","doi":"10.1016/j.humov.2024.103239","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>This study evaluated psychometric properties of the Intersection Point Height, derived from ground-on-feet force characteristics, as a tool for assessing balance control. We compare this metric with traditional center of pressure (CP) measurements.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Data from a public dataset of 146 participants, divided into younger (<60 years old) and older (≥60 years old) adults, were analyzed. Clinical tests included the Short Falls Efficacy Scale-International, International Physical Activity Questionnaire-Short Form, Trail Making Tests A and B, and the Mini-Balance Evaluation Systems Test. Reliability and validity were assessed through the intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC[3,1]) for <em>mean Intersection Point Height</em> in each test condition and Spearman's rho between <em>summative Intersection Point Height</em> (the sum of <em>intra-condition mean</em> values across all test conditions within one subject) and other variables of interest, respectively.</p></div><div><h3>Findings</h3><p><em>Mean Intersection Point Height</em> showed good to excellent reliability (ICC = 0.712–0.901), similar to that of CP velocity (ICC = 0.733–0.922) and greater than that of variance CPx (0.475–0.768). <em>Summative Intersection Point Height</em> exhibited strong convergent validity with Trail Making Tests A and B (rho = 0.49, <em>p</em> < 0.001) and the Mini-Balance Evaluation Systems Test (rho = −0.47, <em>p</em> < 0.001). At most, a weak to moderate association (rho = 0.39–0.49, p < 0.001) was found between <em>intra-condition mean Intersection Point Height</em> with CP metrics. <em>Intra-condition mean Intersection Point Height</em> demonstrated weak to moderate convergent validity with several clinical measures (rho = 0.32–0.52, <em>p</em> < 0.001). In contrast, at most, a weak to moderate association (rho = 0.39–0.49, p < 0.001) was found between <em>intra-condition mean Intersection Point Height</em> with CP metrics.</p></div><div><h3>Interpretation</h3><p>The <em>Intersection Point Height</em> is a reliable and valid balance measure. Further, we believe that it is a more comprehensive evaluation than CP metrics.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":55046,"journal":{"name":"Human Movement Science","volume":"96 ","pages":"Article 103239"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Human Movement Science","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167945724000629","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"NEUROSCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background
This study evaluated psychometric properties of the Intersection Point Height, derived from ground-on-feet force characteristics, as a tool for assessing balance control. We compare this metric with traditional center of pressure (CP) measurements.
Methods
Data from a public dataset of 146 participants, divided into younger (<60 years old) and older (≥60 years old) adults, were analyzed. Clinical tests included the Short Falls Efficacy Scale-International, International Physical Activity Questionnaire-Short Form, Trail Making Tests A and B, and the Mini-Balance Evaluation Systems Test. Reliability and validity were assessed through the intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC[3,1]) for mean Intersection Point Height in each test condition and Spearman's rho between summative Intersection Point Height (the sum of intra-condition mean values across all test conditions within one subject) and other variables of interest, respectively.
Findings
Mean Intersection Point Height showed good to excellent reliability (ICC = 0.712–0.901), similar to that of CP velocity (ICC = 0.733–0.922) and greater than that of variance CPx (0.475–0.768). Summative Intersection Point Height exhibited strong convergent validity with Trail Making Tests A and B (rho = 0.49, p < 0.001) and the Mini-Balance Evaluation Systems Test (rho = −0.47, p < 0.001). At most, a weak to moderate association (rho = 0.39–0.49, p < 0.001) was found between intra-condition mean Intersection Point Height with CP metrics. Intra-condition mean Intersection Point Height demonstrated weak to moderate convergent validity with several clinical measures (rho = 0.32–0.52, p < 0.001). In contrast, at most, a weak to moderate association (rho = 0.39–0.49, p < 0.001) was found between intra-condition mean Intersection Point Height with CP metrics.
Interpretation
The Intersection Point Height is a reliable and valid balance measure. Further, we believe that it is a more comprehensive evaluation than CP metrics.
期刊介绍:
Human Movement Science provides a medium for publishing disciplinary and multidisciplinary studies on human movement. It brings together psychological, biomechanical and neurophysiological research on the control, organization and learning of human movement, including the perceptual support of movement. The overarching goal of the journal is to publish articles that help advance theoretical understanding of the control and organization of human movement, as well as changes therein as a function of development, learning and rehabilitation. The nature of the research reported may vary from fundamental theoretical or empirical studies to more applied studies in the fields of, for example, sport, dance and rehabilitation with the proviso that all studies have a distinct theoretical bearing. Also, reviews and meta-studies advancing the understanding of human movement are welcome.
These aims and scope imply that purely descriptive studies are not acceptable, while methodological articles are only acceptable if the methodology in question opens up new vistas in understanding the control and organization of human movement. The same holds for articles on exercise physiology, which in general are not supported, unless they speak to the control and organization of human movement. In general, it is required that the theoretical message of articles published in Human Movement Science is, to a certain extent, innovative and not dismissible as just "more of the same."