{"title":"Revisiting sources of variability in gait analysis","authors":"Emily Leary , Jinpu Li , Jamie Hall , Trent Guess","doi":"10.1016/j.gaitpost.2024.11.005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Gait analyses in clinical populations must be considered differently, as variation in measurements may be related to the clinical condition and not just factors of interest. However, measurements taken from gait also have natural variability and this variability is further compounded when multiple factors may be of clinical interest.</div></div><div><h3>Research question</h3><div>Do current methods properly assign and quantify the amount of variability in gait data?</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Simulated data were utilized to identify subject and therapist effects using multiple gait trials; data were simulated with and without multiple sessions with therapists. Five different statistical designs were considered that allow within-subject, within-therapist, and between-therapist errors. These are (1) a series of nested models, (2) a single model with interaction effects and nested structure, (3) cross-sectional ANOVA with fixed effects, (4) cross-sectional ANOVA with random effects, and (5) nested ANOVA. All modeling considered different therapists, trials, and subjects, and considered models were identified from gait literature. Ratios between estimated variances and the overall statistical errors were calculated; ratios were averaged and considered correctly identified when the estimated variance or variance component was greater than the random errors.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>The series of nested models identified therapist and session effects for all simulated outcomes but failed to account for subject and interaction effects. Estimates from the single model with interaction effects and nested structure exhibited a broader range of averaged ratios. The cross-sectional ANOVA with fixed effects accurately identified the sources of variability and can better quantify the source of variation, compared to all other considered models.</div></div><div><h3>Significance</h3><div>Accurately identifying and assigning sources of variability is imperative to accurately interpret gait which may influence or change clinical interpretation or understanding. The appropriate statistical design allows one to partition variation to accomplish this purpose.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":12496,"journal":{"name":"Gait & posture","volume":"117 ","pages":"Pages 100-108"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Gait & posture","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0966636224006751","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"NEUROSCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background
Gait analyses in clinical populations must be considered differently, as variation in measurements may be related to the clinical condition and not just factors of interest. However, measurements taken from gait also have natural variability and this variability is further compounded when multiple factors may be of clinical interest.
Research question
Do current methods properly assign and quantify the amount of variability in gait data?
Methods
Simulated data were utilized to identify subject and therapist effects using multiple gait trials; data were simulated with and without multiple sessions with therapists. Five different statistical designs were considered that allow within-subject, within-therapist, and between-therapist errors. These are (1) a series of nested models, (2) a single model with interaction effects and nested structure, (3) cross-sectional ANOVA with fixed effects, (4) cross-sectional ANOVA with random effects, and (5) nested ANOVA. All modeling considered different therapists, trials, and subjects, and considered models were identified from gait literature. Ratios between estimated variances and the overall statistical errors were calculated; ratios were averaged and considered correctly identified when the estimated variance or variance component was greater than the random errors.
Results
The series of nested models identified therapist and session effects for all simulated outcomes but failed to account for subject and interaction effects. Estimates from the single model with interaction effects and nested structure exhibited a broader range of averaged ratios. The cross-sectional ANOVA with fixed effects accurately identified the sources of variability and can better quantify the source of variation, compared to all other considered models.
Significance
Accurately identifying and assigning sources of variability is imperative to accurately interpret gait which may influence or change clinical interpretation or understanding. The appropriate statistical design allows one to partition variation to accomplish this purpose.
期刊介绍:
Gait & Posture is a vehicle for the publication of up-to-date basic and clinical research on all aspects of locomotion and balance.
The topics covered include: Techniques for the measurement of gait and posture, and the standardization of results presentation; Studies of normal and pathological gait; Treatment of gait and postural abnormalities; Biomechanical and theoretical approaches to gait and posture; Mathematical models of joint and muscle mechanics; Neurological and musculoskeletal function in gait and posture; The evolution of upright posture and bipedal locomotion; Adaptations of carrying loads, walking on uneven surfaces, climbing stairs etc; spinal biomechanics only if they are directly related to gait and/or posture and are of general interest to our readers; The effect of aging and development on gait and posture; Psychological and cultural aspects of gait; Patient education.