主动运动范围辨别评估(AMEDA)的刺激量从 50 个缩短为 25 个,以减轻测试疲劳,其评估方案是可靠的。

IF 1.4 4区 心理学 Q4 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL Perceptual and Motor Skills Pub Date : 2024-11-27 DOI:10.1177/00315125241304169
Gordon Waddington, Jeremy Witchalls
{"title":"主动运动范围辨别评估(AMEDA)的刺激量从 50 个缩短为 25 个,以减轻测试疲劳,其评估方案是可靠的。","authors":"Gordon Waddington, Jeremy Witchalls","doi":"10.1177/00315125241304169","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Active movement extent discrimination assessment (AMEDA) is a psychophysical task that evaluates proprioception and tactile acuity of the lower limbs, and it is a method of determining sensorimotor ability. Sensorimotor ability is the ability to judge small differences in movement tasks through the process of receiving sensory messages (sensory input) and producing a response (motor output). Participant attention lapses in prior psychophysical studies have been implicated as a cause for increased measurement variance thresholds in these types of assessments. Since minimizing the time needed for the AMEDA may help to reduce attention lapses, we compared the reliability of the 50-repetition AMEDA protocol (Group 1) with that of a 25-repetition protocol (Group 2). We assessed the split half reliability of these two approaches, using the Spearman-Brown Adjusted Pearson correlation (r). For each method, we calculated Bland-Altman Plots and Intra Class Correlation Coefficients to compare the reliability of the two data sets and determine the 95% confidence intervals. Split-half test re-test Spearman-Brown Adjusted Pearson r (r<sub>full</sub>) was Group 1 <i>r</i><sub><i>full</i></sub> = 0.83 and Group 2 <i>r</i><sub><i>full</i></sub> = 0.85. The Bland-Altman Plots indicated only a small degree of bias from the zero-difference line, with 95% of the difference points lying within the limits of agreement. For Group 1, the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) two-way, agreement was 0.83 (95% CI 0.54-0.93) and for Group 2, the ICC, two-way, agreement, was 0.85 (95% CI 0.66-0.93). The MDC90 for Group 1 was 0.082 AUC units and for Group 2, it was 0.086 AUC units. The combined data for Group 1 plus Group 2 Bland-Altman Plot indicated only a small degree of bias from the zero-difference line, with 95% of the difference points lying within the limits of agreement. The MDC90 for the combined groups was 0.08 AUC units. The multiple methods from previous research assessing test re-test reliability that we applied to our two data sets indicate that the 25-response AMEDA was a reliable system for evaluating sensorimotor function in the lower limbs and may be an alternative for the more traditional 50-response protocol in which lapses in participant attention from fatigue or other biases may be a concern. There are also practical advantages in time restricted athletic screenings to a shorter administration of this assessment.</p>","PeriodicalId":19869,"journal":{"name":"Perceptual and Motor Skills","volume":" ","pages":"315125241304169"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Protocol for Active Movement Extent Discrimination Assessment (AMEDA) is Reliable When Shortened From 50 to 25 Stimuli to Reduce Testing Fatigue.\",\"authors\":\"Gordon Waddington, Jeremy Witchalls\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/00315125241304169\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Active movement extent discrimination assessment (AMEDA) is a psychophysical task that evaluates proprioception and tactile acuity of the lower limbs, and it is a method of determining sensorimotor ability. Sensorimotor ability is the ability to judge small differences in movement tasks through the process of receiving sensory messages (sensory input) and producing a response (motor output). Participant attention lapses in prior psychophysical studies have been implicated as a cause for increased measurement variance thresholds in these types of assessments. Since minimizing the time needed for the AMEDA may help to reduce attention lapses, we compared the reliability of the 50-repetition AMEDA protocol (Group 1) with that of a 25-repetition protocol (Group 2). We assessed the split half reliability of these two approaches, using the Spearman-Brown Adjusted Pearson correlation (r). For each method, we calculated Bland-Altman Plots and Intra Class Correlation Coefficients to compare the reliability of the two data sets and determine the 95% confidence intervals. Split-half test re-test Spearman-Brown Adjusted Pearson r (r<sub>full</sub>) was Group 1 <i>r</i><sub><i>full</i></sub> = 0.83 and Group 2 <i>r</i><sub><i>full</i></sub> = 0.85. The Bland-Altman Plots indicated only a small degree of bias from the zero-difference line, with 95% of the difference points lying within the limits of agreement. For Group 1, the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) two-way, agreement was 0.83 (95% CI 0.54-0.93) and for Group 2, the ICC, two-way, agreement, was 0.85 (95% CI 0.66-0.93). The MDC90 for Group 1 was 0.082 AUC units and for Group 2, it was 0.086 AUC units. The combined data for Group 1 plus Group 2 Bland-Altman Plot indicated only a small degree of bias from the zero-difference line, with 95% of the difference points lying within the limits of agreement. The MDC90 for the combined groups was 0.08 AUC units. The multiple methods from previous research assessing test re-test reliability that we applied to our two data sets indicate that the 25-response AMEDA was a reliable system for evaluating sensorimotor function in the lower limbs and may be an alternative for the more traditional 50-response protocol in which lapses in participant attention from fatigue or other biases may be a concern. There are also practical advantages in time restricted athletic screenings to a shorter administration of this assessment.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19869,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Perceptual and Motor Skills\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"315125241304169\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Perceptual and Motor Skills\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/00315125241304169\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Perceptual and Motor Skills","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00315125241304169","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

主动运动范围分辨评估(AMEDA)是一项心理物理学任务,用于评估下肢的本体感觉和触觉敏锐度,是一种确定感觉运动能力的方法。感觉运动能力是指通过接收感觉信息(感觉输入)和产生反应(运动输出)的过程来判断运动任务中微小差异的能力。在之前的心理物理研究中,参与者的注意力缺失被认为是导致此类评估中测量差异阈值增大的一个原因。由于尽量缩短 AMEDA 所需的时间可能有助于减少注意力缺失,我们比较了 50 次重复 AMEDA 方案(第 1 组)和 25 次重复方案(第 2 组)的可靠性。我们使用斯皮尔曼-布朗调整皮尔逊相关性(r)评估了这两种方法的分半可靠性。对于每种方法,我们都计算了布兰德-阿尔特曼图和类内相关系数,以比较两组数据的可靠性并确定 95% 的置信区间。裂半检验再检验斯皮尔曼-布朗调整皮尔逊 r(rfull)为第一组 rfull = 0.83,第二组 rfull = 0.85。布兰德-阿尔特曼图(Bland-Altman Plots)显示,与零差异线的偏差很小,95% 的差异点在一致范围内。第 1 组的类内相关系数(ICC)双向一致性为 0.83(95% CI 0.54-0.93),第 2 组的类内相关系数双向一致性为 0.85(95% CI 0.66-0.93)。第 1 组的 MDC90 为 0.082 AUC 单位,第 2 组为 0.086 AUC 单位。第 1 组和第 2 组的布兰-阿尔特曼图(Bland-Altman Plot)合并数据显示,与零差异线仅有很小程度的偏差,95% 的差异点位于一致性范围内。合并组的 MDC90 为 0.08 AUC 单位。我们在两组数据中采用了以往研究中评估测试重测可靠性的多种方法,结果表明,25 次反应的 AMEDA 是评估下肢感觉运动功能的可靠系统,可以替代更传统的 50 次反应方案,因为在这种方案中,疲劳或其他偏差可能会导致受试者注意力不集中。在有时间限制的运动筛查中,较短的评估时间也具有实际优势。
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
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The Protocol for Active Movement Extent Discrimination Assessment (AMEDA) is Reliable When Shortened From 50 to 25 Stimuli to Reduce Testing Fatigue.

Active movement extent discrimination assessment (AMEDA) is a psychophysical task that evaluates proprioception and tactile acuity of the lower limbs, and it is a method of determining sensorimotor ability. Sensorimotor ability is the ability to judge small differences in movement tasks through the process of receiving sensory messages (sensory input) and producing a response (motor output). Participant attention lapses in prior psychophysical studies have been implicated as a cause for increased measurement variance thresholds in these types of assessments. Since minimizing the time needed for the AMEDA may help to reduce attention lapses, we compared the reliability of the 50-repetition AMEDA protocol (Group 1) with that of a 25-repetition protocol (Group 2). We assessed the split half reliability of these two approaches, using the Spearman-Brown Adjusted Pearson correlation (r). For each method, we calculated Bland-Altman Plots and Intra Class Correlation Coefficients to compare the reliability of the two data sets and determine the 95% confidence intervals. Split-half test re-test Spearman-Brown Adjusted Pearson r (rfull) was Group 1 rfull = 0.83 and Group 2 rfull = 0.85. The Bland-Altman Plots indicated only a small degree of bias from the zero-difference line, with 95% of the difference points lying within the limits of agreement. For Group 1, the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) two-way, agreement was 0.83 (95% CI 0.54-0.93) and for Group 2, the ICC, two-way, agreement, was 0.85 (95% CI 0.66-0.93). The MDC90 for Group 1 was 0.082 AUC units and for Group 2, it was 0.086 AUC units. The combined data for Group 1 plus Group 2 Bland-Altman Plot indicated only a small degree of bias from the zero-difference line, with 95% of the difference points lying within the limits of agreement. The MDC90 for the combined groups was 0.08 AUC units. The multiple methods from previous research assessing test re-test reliability that we applied to our two data sets indicate that the 25-response AMEDA was a reliable system for evaluating sensorimotor function in the lower limbs and may be an alternative for the more traditional 50-response protocol in which lapses in participant attention from fatigue or other biases may be a concern. There are also practical advantages in time restricted athletic screenings to a shorter administration of this assessment.

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
Perceptual and Motor Skills
Perceptual and Motor Skills PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL-
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
6.20%
发文量
110
期刊最新文献
Enhancing Groundstrokes Velocity and Accuracy in Post-pubertal and Adult Tennis Players: A Systematic Review of Interventions. Importance of Motor Control in "Static Situations" Where the Situation Does not Seem to Change. A Mixed-Methods Investigation into the Interplay Between Supportive Work Environment, Achievement Emotions, and Teaching for Creativity as Perceived by Chinese EFL Teachers. Complex Relationships Between Students' Foreign Language Attitudes and Proficiency Perceptions with Foreign Language Classroom Enjoyment: Insights from Chinese University Students of Japanese. Modeling the Contribution of Grit, Enjoyment, and Boredom to Predict English as a Foreign Language Students' Willingness to Communicate in a Blended Learning Environment.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1