力交点在人体静立平衡评估中的可靠性和有效性

IF 1.6 3区心理学 Q4 NEUROSCIENCES Human Movement Science Pub Date : 2024-05-28 DOI:10.1016/j.humov.2024.103239

Jennifer N. Bartloff , Kreg G. Gruben , Colin R. Grove

{"title":"力交点在人体静立平衡评估中的可靠性和有效性","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":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"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\":null,\"pages\":null},\"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}","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

摘要

背景本研究评估了交点高度的心理测量特性，交点高度是根据脚着地力特征得出的，可作为评估平衡控制能力的工具。我们将这一指标与传统的压力中心（CP）测量方法进行了比较。研究分析了来自公共数据集的 146 名参与者的数据，这些参与者分为年轻人（60 岁）和老年人（≥60 岁）。临床测试包括国际短期跌倒功效量表、国际体力活动调查问卷-简表、路径制作测试 A 和 B 以及迷你平衡评估系统测试。信度和效度分别通过每个测试条件下交叉点平均高度的类内相关系数（ICC[3,1]）和交叉点平均高度（一个受试者所有测试条件下的类内平均值之和）与其他相关变量之间的斯皮尔曼rho进行评估。研究结果交叉点高度均值显示出良好至卓越的可靠性（ICC = 0.712-0.901），与 CP 速度的可靠性（ICC = 0.733-0.922）相似，大于 CPx 方差的可靠性（0.475-0.768）。总和交叉点高度与路径制作测试 A 和 B（rho = 0.49，p < 0.001）以及小型平衡评估系统测试（rho = -0.47，p < 0.001）具有很强的趋同效度。条件内平均交叉点高度与心肺功能指标之间最多存在弱到中等程度的关联（rho = 0.39-0.49, p <0.001）。条件内平均交叉点高度与几种临床测量指标之间表现出弱到中等的收敛有效性（rho = 0.32-0.52，p <0.001）。相比之下，条件内平均交叉点高度与 CP 指标之间最多只有弱到中等程度的关联（rho = 0.39-0.49，p <0.001）。此外，我们认为它比 CP 指标的评估更全面。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

Reliability and validity of the force intersection point in the assessment of human quiet standing balance

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.

求助全文

通过发布文献求助，成功后即可免费获取论文全文。去求助

来源期刊

Human Movement Science 医学-神经科学

CiteScore

3.80

自引率

4.80%

发文量

审稿时长

42 days

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."