Cargando…

Comparative analysis of postural control and vertical jump performance between three different measurement devices

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to examine the concurrent validity of the HUMAC Balance System (HBS) and Balance Trainer BTG4 (BTG) in comparison to a laboratory-grade force platform (FP) for postural control (PC) and vertical jump performance (VJP) assessment. In addition, reliability of the...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Blosch, Christopher, Schäfer, Robin, de Marées, Markus, Platen, Petra
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6742393/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31513655
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0222502
_version_ 1783451104628965376
author Blosch, Christopher
Schäfer, Robin
de Marées, Markus
Platen, Petra
author_facet Blosch, Christopher
Schäfer, Robin
de Marées, Markus
Platen, Petra
author_sort Blosch, Christopher
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to examine the concurrent validity of the HUMAC Balance System (HBS) and Balance Trainer BTG4 (BTG) in comparison to a laboratory-grade force platform (FP) for postural control (PC) and vertical jump performance (VJP) assessment. In addition, reliability of the three devices was measured for PC. METHODS: Overall 22 participants (age = 37.8 ± 13.3 years; gender = 9 male, 13 female; height = 174.1 ± 10.5 cm; body mass = 75.3 ± 17.6 kg) were recruited to participate. Double and single leg standing balance tests with eyes open or closed and counter movement jumps (CMJ) were performed on two separate occasions. Reliability and concurrent validity for COP parameters and VJP were examined using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC), Bland-Altman plots (BAP), standard error of measurement (SEM) and minimum detectable change (MDC). RESULTS: COP path length test-retest reliability was predominantly good to excellent for all three devices (ICC = 0.80–0.95). SEM and MDC values were high for all plates (SEM% = 8.0–15.2; MDC% = 22.8–44.5), with the HBS MDC values higher than the KIS and BTG in three of the four trials. ICC scores for concurrent validity were good to excellent for the BTG (ICC = 0.76–0.93) and moderate to good for the HBS (0.49–0.83). Band-Altman plots revealed a systematic bias for the HBS towards higher COP path length values under all conditions and for the BTG in two out of four trials towards lower values. Validity of VJP was excellent for the BTG (ICC = 1.0) and poor for the HBS (0.34), with a systematic bias towards lower values. CONCLUSION: The comparative analysis of PC and VJP revealed reliable and valid results for the BTG in comparison to a laboratory-grade force plate. The HBS showed reliable results for PC assessment with restrictions regarding its validity. Results of VJP showed that the HBS revealed deficits in the assessment of activities that require rapid, high force movements such as jumping and running. Due to the variable results of all three devices, it is recommended not to use them interchangeably.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6742393
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-67423932019-09-20 Comparative analysis of postural control and vertical jump performance between three different measurement devices Blosch, Christopher Schäfer, Robin de Marées, Markus Platen, Petra PLoS One Research Article OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to examine the concurrent validity of the HUMAC Balance System (HBS) and Balance Trainer BTG4 (BTG) in comparison to a laboratory-grade force platform (FP) for postural control (PC) and vertical jump performance (VJP) assessment. In addition, reliability of the three devices was measured for PC. METHODS: Overall 22 participants (age = 37.8 ± 13.3 years; gender = 9 male, 13 female; height = 174.1 ± 10.5 cm; body mass = 75.3 ± 17.6 kg) were recruited to participate. Double and single leg standing balance tests with eyes open or closed and counter movement jumps (CMJ) were performed on two separate occasions. Reliability and concurrent validity for COP parameters and VJP were examined using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC), Bland-Altman plots (BAP), standard error of measurement (SEM) and minimum detectable change (MDC). RESULTS: COP path length test-retest reliability was predominantly good to excellent for all three devices (ICC = 0.80–0.95). SEM and MDC values were high for all plates (SEM% = 8.0–15.2; MDC% = 22.8–44.5), with the HBS MDC values higher than the KIS and BTG in three of the four trials. ICC scores for concurrent validity were good to excellent for the BTG (ICC = 0.76–0.93) and moderate to good for the HBS (0.49–0.83). Band-Altman plots revealed a systematic bias for the HBS towards higher COP path length values under all conditions and for the BTG in two out of four trials towards lower values. Validity of VJP was excellent for the BTG (ICC = 1.0) and poor for the HBS (0.34), with a systematic bias towards lower values. CONCLUSION: The comparative analysis of PC and VJP revealed reliable and valid results for the BTG in comparison to a laboratory-grade force plate. The HBS showed reliable results for PC assessment with restrictions regarding its validity. Results of VJP showed that the HBS revealed deficits in the assessment of activities that require rapid, high force movements such as jumping and running. Due to the variable results of all three devices, it is recommended not to use them interchangeably. Public Library of Science 2019-09-12 /pmc/articles/PMC6742393/ /pubmed/31513655 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0222502 Text en © 2019 Blosch et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Blosch, Christopher
Schäfer, Robin
de Marées, Markus
Platen, Petra
Comparative analysis of postural control and vertical jump performance between three different measurement devices
title Comparative analysis of postural control and vertical jump performance between three different measurement devices
title_full Comparative analysis of postural control and vertical jump performance between three different measurement devices
title_fullStr Comparative analysis of postural control and vertical jump performance between three different measurement devices
title_full_unstemmed Comparative analysis of postural control and vertical jump performance between three different measurement devices
title_short Comparative analysis of postural control and vertical jump performance between three different measurement devices
title_sort comparative analysis of postural control and vertical jump performance between three different measurement devices
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6742393/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31513655
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0222502
work_keys_str_mv AT bloschchristopher comparativeanalysisofposturalcontrolandverticaljumpperformancebetweenthreedifferentmeasurementdevices
AT schaferrobin comparativeanalysisofposturalcontrolandverticaljumpperformancebetweenthreedifferentmeasurementdevices
AT demareesmarkus comparativeanalysisofposturalcontrolandverticaljumpperformancebetweenthreedifferentmeasurementdevices
AT platenpetra comparativeanalysisofposturalcontrolandverticaljumpperformancebetweenthreedifferentmeasurementdevices