↓ Skip to main content

Test–retest reliability of KINARM robot sensorimotor and cognitive assessment: in pediatric ice hockey players

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (68th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (57th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
36 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
184 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Test–retest reliability of KINARM robot sensorimotor and cognitive assessment: in pediatric ice hockey players
Published in
Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation, September 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12984-015-0070-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

C. Elaine Little, Carolyn Emery, Amanda Black, Stephen H. Scott, Willem Meeuwisse, Alberto Nettel-Aguirre, Brian Benson, Sean Dukelow

Abstract

Better diagnostic and prognostic tools are needed to address issues related to early diagnosis and management of concussion across the continuum of aging but particularly in children and adolescents. The purpose of the current study was to evaluate the reliability of robotic technology (KINARM robot) assessments of reaching, position sense, bimanual motor function, visuospatial skills, attention and decision making in youth ice hockey players (ages 10-14). Thirty-four male children attended two testing days, one week apart. On day one, each subject completed five tasks on the robot with two examiners (alternating examiner sequence); the 2(nd) examiner followed the same procedure as the 1(st) immediately afterwards. One consistent examiner tested subjects one week later. This is a test-retest reliability study. The robotic tasks characterize sensorimotor and/or cognitive performance; 63 parameters from 5 tasks are reported. Session 1 was the 1(st) time the subject performed the 5 tasks, session 2 the 2(nd) time on day 1, and session 3 one week following. Intra-class correlation coefficients ranged from 0.06 to 0.91 and 0.09 to 0.90 for session 1 to 2 and 2 to 3, respectively. Bland-Altman plots showed agreement in a majority of the parameters and a learning effect in 25 % and 24 % of parameters in session 1 vs 2 and 1 vs 3, respectively but none for session 2 vs 3. Of those that showed a learning effect, only 8 % of parameters in session 1 vs 2 and 10 % in session 1 vs 3 had a clinical relevance measure ≥ 0.8. The relative homogeneity of the sample and the effect of learning seen in some of the task parameters appears to have negatively impacted the intra-class correlation coefficients from session 1 to 2, with less impact for 2 to 3. The Bland-Altman analysis supports good absolute reliability in healthy male children with no neurological impairment ranging in age from 10 to 14. The clinically relevant learning effect seen, in a small number of parameters could be addressed by creating a learning effect adjustment factor and/or implementing a practice session, which would eliminate the learning effect.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 184 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 183 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 40 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 31 17%
Student > Bachelor 19 10%
Researcher 14 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 12 7%
Other 28 15%
Unknown 40 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 32 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 20 11%
Neuroscience 17 9%
Sports and Recreations 16 9%
Psychology 12 7%
Other 30 16%
Unknown 57 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 23 March 2016.
All research outputs
#7,133,171
of 22,826,360 outputs
Outputs from Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation
#446
of 1,279 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#85,129
of 267,371 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation
#8
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,826,360 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,279 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its peers.
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 267,371 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% of its contemporaries.