Cargando…

Comparison of programs for determining temporal-spatial gait variables from instrumented walkway data: PKmas versus GAITRite

BACKGROUND: Measurement of temporal-spatial gait variables is common in aging research with several methods available. This study investigated the differences in temporal-spatial gait outcomes derived from two different programs for processing instrumented walkway data. METHOD: Data were collected w...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Egerton, Thorlene, Thingstad, Pernille, Helbostad, Jorunn L
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4150969/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25134621
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1756-0500-7-542
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: Measurement of temporal-spatial gait variables is common in aging research with several methods available. This study investigated the differences in temporal-spatial gait outcomes derived from two different programs for processing instrumented walkway data. METHOD: Data were collected with GAITRite® hardware from 86 healthy older people and 44 older people four months following surgical repair of hip fracture. Temporal-spatial variables were derived using both GAITRite® and PKmas® processing programs from the same raw footfall data. RESULTS: The mean differences between the two programs for most variables were negligible, including for Speed (mean difference 0.3 ± 0.6 cm/sec, or 0.3% of the mean GAITRite® Speed). The mean absolute percentage difference for all 18 gait variables examined ranged from 0.04% for Stride Duration to 66% for Foot Angle. The ICCs were almost perfect (≥0.99) for all variables apart from Base Width, Foot Angle, Stride Length Variability, Step Length Variability, Step Duration Variability and Step Width Variability, which were all never-the-less above 0.84. There were systematic differences for Base Width (PKmas® values 1.6 cm lower than GAITRite®) and Foot Angle (PKMAS® values 0.7° higher than GAITRite®). The differences can be explained by the differences in definitions and calculations between the programs. CONCLUSIONS: The study demonstrated that for most variables the outcomes from both programs can be used interchangeably for evaluation of gait among older people collected with GAITRite® hardware. However, validity and reliability for Base Width and Foot Angle derived by PKMAS® would benefit from further investigation. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/1756-0500-7-542) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.