Elizabeth F Teel1, Semyon M Slobounov. 1. *Department of Kinesiology, Penn State University, University Park, Pennsylvania; and †Penn State Center for Sport Concussion Research and Services, University Park, Pennsylvania.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the criterion and content validity of a virtual reality (VR) balance module for use in clinical practice. DESIGN: Retrospective, VR balance module completed by participants during concussion baseline or assessment testing session. SETTING: A Pennsylvania State University research laboratory. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 60 control and 28 concussed students and athletes from the Pennsylvania State University. INTERVENTIONS: None. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: This study examined: (1) the relationship between VR composite balance scores (final, stationary, yaw, pitch, and roll) and area of the center-of-pressure (eyes open and closed) scores and (2) group differences (normal volunteers and concussed student-athletes) on VR composite balance scores. RESULTS: With the exception of the stationary composite score, all other VR balance composite scores were significantly correlated with the center of pressure data obtained from a force platform. Significant correlations ranged from r = -0.273 to -0.704 for the eyes open conditions and from r = -0.353 to -0.876 for the eyes closed condition. When examining group differences on the VR balance composite modules, the concussed group did significantly (P < 0.01) worse on all measures compared with the control group. CONCLUSIONS: The VR balance module met or exceeded the criterion and content validity standard set by the current balance tools and may be appropriate for use in a clinical concussion setting. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Virtual reality balance module is a valid tool for concussion assessment in clinical settings. This novel type of balance assessment may be more sensitive to concussion diagnoses, especially later (7-10 days) in the recovery phase than current clinical balance tools.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the criterion and content validity of a virtual reality (VR) balance module for use in clinical practice. DESIGN: Retrospective, VR balance module completed by participants during concussion baseline or assessment testing session. SETTING: A Pennsylvania State University research laboratory. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 60 control and 28 concussed students and athletes from the Pennsylvania State University. INTERVENTIONS: None. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: This study examined: (1) the relationship between VR composite balance scores (final, stationary, yaw, pitch, and roll) and area of the center-of-pressure (eyes open and closed) scores and (2) group differences (normal volunteers and concussed student-athletes) on VR composite balance scores. RESULTS: With the exception of the stationary composite score, all other VR balance composite scores were significantly correlated with the center of pressure data obtained from a force platform. Significant correlations ranged from r = -0.273 to -0.704 for the eyes open conditions and from r = -0.353 to -0.876 for the eyes closed condition. When examining group differences on the VR balance composite modules, the concussed group did significantly (P < 0.01) worse on all measures compared with the control group. CONCLUSIONS: The VR balance module met or exceeded the criterion and content validity standard set by the current balance tools and may be appropriate for use in a clinical concussion setting. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Virtual reality balance module is a valid tool for concussion assessment in clinical settings. This novel type of balance assessment may be more sensitive to concussion diagnoses, especially later (7-10 days) in the recovery phase than current clinical balance tools.
Authors: Jamie L Mansell; Ryan T Tierney; Michael Higgins; Jane McDevitt; Nieka Toone; Joseph Glutting Journal: Brain Inj Date: 2010 Impact factor: 2.311
Authors: Jodie L Cochrane; David G Lloyd; Thor F Besier; Bruce C Elliott; Tim L A Doyle; Timothy R Ackland Journal: Med Sci Sports Exerc Date: 2010-08 Impact factor: 5.411
Authors: Michael McCrea; Kevin M Guskiewicz; Stephen W Marshall; William Barr; Christopher Randolph; Robert C Cantu; James A Onate; Jingzhen Yang; James P Kelly Journal: JAMA Date: 2003-11-19 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Linda Papa; Semyon M Slobounov; Hans C Breiter; Alexa Walter; Tim Bream; Peter Seidenberg; Julian E Bailes; Stephen Bravo; Brian Johnson; David Kaufman; Dennis L Molfese; Thomas M Talavage; David C Zhu; Barbara Knollmann-Ritschel; Manish Bhomia Journal: J Neurotrauma Date: 2018-12-05 Impact factor: 5.269
Authors: Jaclyn B Caccese; Fernando V Santos; Felipe K Yamaguchi; Thomas A Buckley; John J Jeka Journal: Sports Med Date: 2021-04-21 Impact factor: 11.928
Authors: Kamal M Yakoub; David J Davies; Zhangjie Su; Conor Bentley; Mario Forcione; Emma Toman; Douglas Hammond; Callum N Watson; Jon Bishop; Lauren Cooper; Aron K Barbey; Vijay Sawlani; Valentina Di Pietro; Michael J Grey; Antonio Belli Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2019-07-04 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Yufen Chen; Amy A Herrold; Zoran Martinovich; Sumra Bari; Nicole L Vike; Anne J Blood; Alexa E Walter; Jaroslaw Harezlak; Peter H Seidenberg; Manish Bhomia; Barbara Knollmann-Ritschel; Khrystyna Stetsiv; James L Reilly; Eric A Nauman; Thomas M Talavage; Linda Papa; Semyon Slobounov; Hans C Breiter Journal: Cereb Cortex Commun Date: 2020-10-26
Authors: Nicole L Vike; Sumra Bari; Khrystyna Stetsiv; Alexa Walter; Sharlene Newman; Keisuke Kawata; Jeffrey J Bazarian; Zoran Martinovich; Eric A Nauman; Thomas M Talavage; Linda Papa; Semyon M Slobounov; Hans C Breiter Journal: iScience Date: 2021-12-15