Thomas A Prato, Robert C Lynall, David R Howell, Vipul Lugade
{"title":"Validity and Reliability of an Integrated Smartphone Measurement Approach for Balance.","authors":"Thomas A Prato, Robert C Lynall, David R Howell, Vipul Lugade","doi":"10.1123/jsr.2024-0072","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Context: </strong>Clinical balance assessments vary in reliability due to subjectivity in their scoring. A valid and objective accelerometer-based smartphone evaluation could benefit patients, clinicians, and researchers.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>Our objective was to assess the validity and reliability of smartphone-based standing balance.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>A repeated-measures study was conducted with 23 healthy young adult participants across 2 sessions ∼7 days apart.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Participants completed 30-second standing trials during tandem-stance eyes-open, tandem-stance eyes-closed, single-leg eyes-open, and single-leg eyes-closed conditions. Android and iOS smartphones were placed vertically on the lower back via a belt with 3 retroreflective markers attached and tracked by an 8-camera motion capture system. Sway path, range, and area were calculated from smartphone accelerometer and marker data. We assessed reliability using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC[2,k]) and validity using Pearson r correlations between the marker and smartphones from visit 1.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Across eyes-open conditions, Android (ICC = .84-.96), iOS (ICC = .82-.98), and marker-based (ICC = .84-.95) assessments demonstrated good to excellent reliability. Across eyes-closed conditions, Android (ICC = .41-.87), iOS (ICC = .34-.79), and marker-based (ICC = .31-.87) assessments demonstrated poor to good reliability. Correlations between smartphones and the marker data were moderate to very high (r = .56-.97).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The smartphone-based assessment was valid and reliable, indicating that clinicians and researchers can implement this method to measure balance with the opportunity for remote administration and increased patient tracking across various recovery timepoints.</p>","PeriodicalId":50041,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Sport Rehabilitation","volume":" ","pages":"1-7"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Sport Rehabilitation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1123/jsr.2024-0072","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Context: Clinical balance assessments vary in reliability due to subjectivity in their scoring. A valid and objective accelerometer-based smartphone evaluation could benefit patients, clinicians, and researchers.
Objective: Our objective was to assess the validity and reliability of smartphone-based standing balance.
Design: A repeated-measures study was conducted with 23 healthy young adult participants across 2 sessions ∼7 days apart.
Methods: Participants completed 30-second standing trials during tandem-stance eyes-open, tandem-stance eyes-closed, single-leg eyes-open, and single-leg eyes-closed conditions. Android and iOS smartphones were placed vertically on the lower back via a belt with 3 retroreflective markers attached and tracked by an 8-camera motion capture system. Sway path, range, and area were calculated from smartphone accelerometer and marker data. We assessed reliability using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC[2,k]) and validity using Pearson r correlations between the marker and smartphones from visit 1.
Results: Across eyes-open conditions, Android (ICC = .84-.96), iOS (ICC = .82-.98), and marker-based (ICC = .84-.95) assessments demonstrated good to excellent reliability. Across eyes-closed conditions, Android (ICC = .41-.87), iOS (ICC = .34-.79), and marker-based (ICC = .31-.87) assessments demonstrated poor to good reliability. Correlations between smartphones and the marker data were moderate to very high (r = .56-.97).
Conclusions: The smartphone-based assessment was valid and reliable, indicating that clinicians and researchers can implement this method to measure balance with the opportunity for remote administration and increased patient tracking across various recovery timepoints.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Sport Rehabilitation (JSR) is your source for the latest peer-reviewed research in the field of sport rehabilitation. All members of the sports-medicine team will benefit from the wealth of important information in each issue. JSR is completely devoted to the rehabilitation of sport and exercise injuries, regardless of the age, gender, sport ability, level of fitness, or health status of the participant.
JSR publishes peer-reviewed original research, systematic reviews/meta-analyses, critically appraised topics (CATs), case studies/series, and technical reports that directly affect the management and rehabilitation of injuries incurred during sport-related activities, irrespective of the individual’s age, gender, sport ability, level of fitness, or health status. The journal is intended to provide an international, multidisciplinary forum to serve the needs of all members of the sports medicine team, including athletic trainers/therapists, sport physical therapists/physiotherapists, sports medicine physicians, and other health care and medical professionals.