Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 10 of 189 items for :

  • "concurrent validity" x
Clear All
Free access

Roel De Ridder, Julien Lebleu, Tine Willems, Cedric De Blaiser, Christine Detrembleur and Philip Roosen

IMU to a golden standard, such as the GAITRite ® system with proven reliability and validity of spatiotemporal gait parameters. 8 The purpose of this study was to confirm the test–retest reliability and concurrent validity of a commercially available body-worn sensor—BTS G-WALK ® sensor system

Restricted access

Jason Lake, Peter Mundy, Paul Comfort, John J. McMahon, Timothy J. Suchomel and Patrick Carden

dual-plate system yields a typical measurement range upper limit of 8.8 kN with protection up to 13.2 kN. Although it appears that this portable force plate system may provide a realistic alternative to established systems, nothing is known about its reliability and concurrent validity. Currently, a 1

Restricted access

Moataz Eltoukhy, Christopher Kuenze, Jeonghoon Oh, Eryn Apanovitch, Lauren Butler and Joseph F. Signorile

doi:10.1016/j.gaitpost.2016.10.001 27721202 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2016.10.001 27. Mentiplay BF , Perraton LG , Bower KJ , et al . Gait assessment using the Microsoft Xbox one Kinect: concurrent validity and inter-day reliability of spatiotemporal and kinematic variables . J Biomech . 2015

Restricted access

Katherine J. Riggen, Dale A. Ulrich and John C. Ozmun

The reliability and concurrent validity of the Test of Motor Impairment-Henderson Revision was evaluated employing a sample of preschoolers. Absolute reliability of the final test score was established by calculating the standard error of measurement (SEM). An SEM of .86 was obtained. The consistency of decisions related to motor impairment or nonimpairment was estimated by calculating the proportion of agreement index across two testing occasions and Kappa. A 90% agreement was obtained with Kappa equal to .71. Concurrent validity using the Bruininks-Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency-Short Form as the criterion resulted in an 88% agreement between the two tests.

Restricted access

Ryu Nagahara, Alberto Botter, Enrico Rejc, Masaaki Koido, Takeshi Shimizu, Pierre Samozino and Jean-Benoit Morin

Purpose:

To test the concurrent validity of data from 2 different global positioning system (GPS) units for obtaining mechanical properties during sprint acceleration using a field method recently validated by Samozino et al.

Methods:

Thirty-two athletes performed maximal straight-line sprints, and their running speed was simultaneously measured by GPS units (sampling rate: 20 or 5 Hz) and either a radar or laser device (devices taken as references). Lower-limb mechanical properties of sprint acceleration (theoretical maximal force, theoretical maximal speed, maximal power) were derived from a modeling of the speed–time curves using an exponential function in both measurements. Comparisons of mechanical properties from 20- and 5-Hz GPS units with those from reference devices were performed for 80 and 62 trials, respectively.

Results:

The percentage bias showed a wide range of overestimation or underestimation for both systems (-7.9% to 9.7% and -5.1% to 2.9% for 20- and 5-Hz GPS), while the ranges of its 90% confidence limits for 20-Hz GPS were markedly smaller than those for 5-Hz GPS. These results were supported by the correlation analyses.

Conclusions:

Overall, the concurrent validity for all variables derived from 20-Hz GPS measurements was better than that obtained from the 5-Hz GPS units. However, in the current state of GPS devices’ accuracy for speed–time measurements over a maximal sprint acceleration, it is recommended that radar, laser devices, and timing gates remain the reference methods for implementing the computations of Samozino et al.

Restricted access

Swee Kheng Tan, Helen E. Parker and Dawne Larkin

We investigated the concurrent validity and discrimination accuracy of the Bruininks-Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency-Short Form (BOTMP-SF) and the McCarron Assessment of Neuromuscular Development (MAND) for identifying children with and without motor impairment (MI). From a total of 69 Australian children aged from 5 to 11 years, 26 children were classified with MI according to three criteria, including the Movement Assessment Battery for Children (MABC), and were age- and gender-matched with 26 non-MI controls. Performance rankings for the MI/non-MI children on BOTMP-SF and MAND tests were highly correlated (rs = .86); however, only 35% of MI cases were classified alike and 71% of cases were agreed on, overall. Comparing each test with MABC, discrimination statistics revealed MAND was the more accurate discriminator of MI, with higher sensitivity and negative predictive values than the BOTMP-SF. The MAND is a more valid test for the identification of MI in Australian children.

Restricted access

Jochen Klenk, Gisela Büchele, Ulrich Lindemann, Sabrina Kaufmann, Raphael Peter, Roman Laszlo, Susanne Kobel and Dietrich Rothenbacher

The aim of this study was to assess concurrent validity between activPAL and activPAL3 accelerometers in a sample of 53 community-dwelling older adults ≥ 65 years. Physical activity (PA) was measured simultaneously with activPAL and activPAL3 while performing scripted activities. The level of agreement between both devices was calculated for sitting/lying, standing, and walking. In addition, PA was measured over one week using activPAL to estimate the expected agreement with activPAL3 in real life. Overall agreement between activPAL and activPAL3 was 97%. Compared with activPAL, the largest disagreement was seen for standing, with 5% categorized as walking by activPAL3. For walking and sitting/lying, the disagreement was 2%, respectively. The expected daily differences between activPAL3 and activPAL were +15.0 min (95% CI: 11.3ߝ18.8) for walking and +29.5 min (95% CI: 6.2–52.7) for standing. ActivPAL and activPAL3 showed good agreement in older adults. However, if using these devices interchangeably, observed differences might still bias results.

Restricted access

Scott Cheatham, Morey J. Kolber and Michael P. Ernst

Context:

Pulse oximetry has become mobile with the use of smartphone and Bluetooth wireless technology. This technology offers many benefits but has not been extensively studied. There is a need to further validate its clinimetric properties for health professionals to provide proper guidance to patients.

Objective:

This investigation assessed the concurrent validity of the iSpO2 pulse oximeter against a traditional pulse oximeter in measuring short-term resting blood oxygen saturation (SpO2) and pulse rate.

Design:

Observational study of reliability.

Setting:

University kinesiology laboratory.

Participants:

Thirty healthy, recre-ationally active adults (18 men, 12 women; mean age = 25.7 ± 5.46 years, mean height = 170.3cm ± 9.51, mean body mass = 76.4 kg ± 19.33).

Intervention:

Resting measurement of SpO2 and pulse rate using the iSpO2 pulse oximeter with the iPad Mini and a traditional pulse oximeter with Bluetooth.

Main Outcome Measure:

Resting SpO2 and pulse rate were concurrently measured over 5 min.

Results:

The concurrent validity between the iSpO2 and traditional pulse oximeter was moderate for measuring SpO2, intraclass correlation coeffcient (ICC)(3, 1) = .73, SEM = 0.70%, and good for pulse rate, ICC(3, 1) = .97, SEM = 1.74 beats per minute (bpm). The minimal detectable change at the 95% confidence interval for both instruments suggests that there may be 1.94% disagreement for SpO2 and 4.82 bpm disagreement between pulse oximetry methods. The 95% limits of agreement (LoA) for measuring SpO2 suggests that the iSpO2 and traditional pulse oximeters may vary -0.28 ± 1.98%, or approximately 2%. The 95% LoA for measuring pulse rate suggests that the iSpO2 and traditional pulse oximeter may vary 1.74 ± 4.98 bpm, potentially upward of 6 bpm. On the basis of the results of the LoA, it appears that there may be a slight systematic bias between the two devices, with the traditional pulse oximeter producing higher pulse rates than the iSpO2.

Conclusion:

The findings suggest that both instruments may be beneficial for indirect short-term measurements of resting SpO2 and pulse rate.

Restricted access

Scott W. Cheatham, Morey J. Kolber and Michael P. Ernst

Context:

Pulse rate is commonly measured manually or with commercial wrist or belt monitors. More recently, pulse-rate monitoring has become convenient with the use of mobile technology that allows monitoring through a smartphone camera. This optical technology offers many benefits, although the clinimetric properties have not been extensively studied.

Design:

Observational study of reliability.

Setting:

University kinesiology laboratory.

Participants:

30 healthy, recreationally active adults.

Intervention:

Concurrent measurement of pulse rate using 2 smartphone applications (fingertip, face-scan,) with the Polar H7 belt and pulse oximeter.

Main Outcome Measure:

Average resting pulse rate for 5 min in 3 positions (supine, sitting, and prone).

Results:

Concurrent validity in supine and standing was good between the 2 applications and the Polar H7 (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] .80–.98) and pulse oximeter (ICC .82–98). For sitting, the validity was good between the fingertip application, Polar H7 (ICC .97), and pulse oximeter (ICC .97). The face-scan application had moderate validity with the Polar H7 (ICC .74) and pulse oximeter (ICC .69). The minimal detectable change (MDC90) between the fingertip application and Polar H7 ranged from 1.38 to 4.36 beats/min (BPM) and from 0.69 to 2.97 BPM for the pulse oximeter with both positions. The MDC90 between the face-scan application and Polar H7 ranged from 11.88 to 12.83 BPM and from 0.59 to 17.72 BPM for the pulse oximeter. The 95% limits of agreement suggest that the fingertip application may vary between 2.40 and 3.59 BPM with the Polar H7 and between 3.40 and 3.42 BPM with the pulse oximeter. The face-scan application may vary between 3.46 and 3.52 BPM with the Polar H7 and between 2.54 and 3.46 BPM with the pulse oximeter.

Conclusion:

Pulse-rate measurements may be effective using a fingertip application, belt monitor, and pulse oximeter. The fingertip scanner showed superior results compared with the face scanner, which only demonstrated modest validity compared with the Polar H7 and pulse oximeter.

Restricted access

John J. McMahon, Paul A. Jones and Paul Comfort

Purpose:

To determine the concurrent validity and reliability of the popular Just Jump system (JJS) for determining jump height and, if necessary, provide a correction equation for future reference.

Methods:

Eighteen male college athletes performed 3 bilateral countermovement jumps (CMJs) on 2 JJSs (alternative method) that were placed on top of a force platform (criterion method). Two JJSs were used to establish consistency between systems. Jump height was calculated from flight time obtained from the JJS and force platform.

Results:

Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) demonstrated excellent within-session reliability of the CMJ height measurement derived from both the JJS (ICC = .96, P < .001) and the force platform (ICC = .96, P < .001). Dependent t tests revealed that the JJS yielded a significantly greater CMJ jump height (0.46 ± 0.09 m vs 0.33 ± 0.08 m) than the force platform (P < .001, Cohen d = 1.39, power = 1.00). There was, however, an excellent relationship between CMJ heights derived from the JJS and force platform (r = .998, P < .001, power = 1.00), with a coefficient of determination (R 2) of .995. Therefore, the following correction equation was produced: Criterion jump height = (0.8747 × alternative jump height) – 0.0666.

Conclusions:

The JJS provides a reliable but overestimated measure of jump height. It is suggested, therefore, that practitioners who use the JJS as part of future work apply the correction equation presented in this study to resultant jump-height values.