| Title |
Reliability and validity of a novel Kinect-based software program for measuring posture, balance and side-bending
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, January 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12891-017-1927-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Wilhelmus Johannes Andreas Grooten, Lisa Sandberg, John Ressman, Nicolas Diamantoglou, Elin Johansson, Eva Rasmussen-Barr |
| Abstract |
Clinical examinations are subjective and often show a low validity and reliability. Objective and highly reliable quantitative assessments are available in laboratory settings using 3D motion analysis, but these systems are too expensive to use for simple clinical examinations. Qinematic™ is an interactive movement analyses system based on the Kinect camera and is an easy-to-use clinical measurement system for assessing posture, balance and side-bending. The aim of the study was to test the test-retest the reliability and construct validity of Qinematic™ in a healthy population, and to calculate the minimal clinical differences for the variables of interest. A further aim was to identify the discriminative validity of Qinematic™ in people with low-back pain (LBP). We performed a test-retest reliability study (n = 37) with around 1 week between the occasions, a construct validity study (n = 30) in which Qinematic™ was tested against a 3D motion capture system, and a discriminative validity study, in which a group of people with LBP (n = 20) was compared to healthy controls (n = 17). We tested a large range of psychometric properties of 18 variables in three sections: posture (head and pelvic position, weight distribution), balance (sway area and velocity in single- and double-leg stance), and side-bending. The majority of the variables in the posture and balance sections, showed poor/fair reliability (ICC < 0.4) and poor/fair validity (Spearman <0.4), with significant differences between occasions, between Qinematic™ and the 3D-motion capture system. In the clinical study, Qinematic™ did not differ between people with LPB and healthy for these variables. For one variable, side-bending to the left, there was excellent reliability (ICC =0.898), excellent validity (r = 0.943), and Qinematic™ could differentiate between LPB and healthy individuals (p = 0.012). This paper shows that a novel software program (Qinematic™) based on the Kinect camera for measuring balance, posture and side-bending has poor psychometric properties, indicating that the variables on balance and posture should not be used for monitoring individual changes over time or in research. Future research on the dynamic tasks of Qinematic™ is warranted. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 112 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 112 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 17 | 15% |
| Researcher | 14 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 10 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 7 | 6% |
| Other | 20 | 18% |
| Unknown | 33 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 27 | 24% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 9 | 8% |
| Engineering | 7 | 6% |
| Sports and Recreations | 7 | 6% |
| Computer Science | 6 | 5% |
| Other | 17 | 15% |
| Unknown | 39 | 35% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 January 2018.
All research outputs
#20,459,801
of 23,016,919 outputs
Outputs from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#3,668
of 4,092 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#378,545
of 442,249 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#73
of 81 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,016,919 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,092 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.1. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 442,249 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 81 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.