Chia-Cheng Lin1, Jennica L Roche2, Daniel P Steed2, Mark C Musolino3, Greg F Marchetti4, Gabriel R Furman5, Mark S Redfern2, Susan L Whitney6. 1. University of Pittsburgh, Department of Physical Therapy, Pittsburgh, PA, USA ; East Carolina University, Department of Physical Therapy, Greenville, NC, USA. 2. University of Pittsburgh, Department of Bioengineering, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. 3. Crossroads Consulting, LLC, Johnstown, PA, USA. 4. Duquesne University, Department of Physical Therapy, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. 5. University of Pittsburgh, College of Arts and Sciences, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. 6. University of Pittsburgh, Department of Physical Therapy, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Foam pads are commonly used devices in the clinics and laboratories to assess postural control. However, no reliability data are presently available to support the use of one type of foam over another. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the test-rest reliability of postural sway parameters while using two different types of foam that are commonly used and to determine which type of foam is optimal for providing a consistent and effective perturbation. DESIGN: Test-retest reliability. SETTING: Clinical setting. PARTICIPANTS: Ten healthy young subjects were recruited. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The Balance Accelerometry Measure device was used to collect postural sway for 90 seconds with eyes open and closed on three different surface conditions (firm, Airex foam and Neurocom foam). Intraclass correlation coefficients were used to determine test-retest reliability. RESULTS: Eyes open and eyes closed on a firm surface showed fair to good reliability for the path length value (ICC (3,1) = 0.61-0.64, p <0.05). Eyes open and eyes closed on the Airex pad showed fair to excellent reliability for the path length value (ICC (3,1) = 0.41-0.81, p >0.05 with eyes open and eyes closed). Eyes open and eyes closed on the Neurocom foam showed fair to good reliability for the path length value (ICC (3,1)= 0.29-0.45, p >0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The Airex and Neurocom foam pads both provide fair to good reliability. The Airex foam had higher reliability scores with eyes closed than the Neurocom foam pad. Both foam pads appear to produce repeatable findings.
OBJECTIVE: Foam pads are commonly used devices in the clinics and laboratories to assess postural control. However, no reliability data are presently available to support the use of one type of foam over another. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the test-rest reliability of postural sway parameters while using two different types of foam that are commonly used and to determine which type of foam is optimal for providing a consistent and effective perturbation. DESIGN: Test-retest reliability. SETTING: Clinical setting. PARTICIPANTS: Ten healthy young subjects were recruited. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The Balance Accelerometry Measure device was used to collect postural sway for 90 seconds with eyes open and closed on three different surface conditions (firm, Airex foam and Neurocom foam). Intraclass correlation coefficients were used to determine test-retest reliability. RESULTS:Eyes open and eyes closed on a firm surface showed fair to good reliability for the path length value (ICC (3,1) = 0.61-0.64, p <0.05). Eyes open and eyes closed on the Airex pad showed fair to excellent reliability for the path length value (ICC (3,1) = 0.41-0.81, p >0.05 with eyes open and eyes closed). Eyes open and eyes closed on the Neurocom foam showed fair to good reliability for the path length value (ICC (3,1)= 0.29-0.45, p >0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The Airex and Neurocom foam pads both provide fair to good reliability. The Airex foam had higher reliability scores with eyes closed than the Neurocom foam pad. Both foam pads appear to produce repeatable findings.
Authors: Saud F Alsubaie; Susan L Whitney; Joseph M Furman; Gregory F Marchetti; Kathleen H Sienko; Brooke N Klatt; Patrick J Sparto Journal: Phys Ther Date: 2019-10-28
Authors: Johanna Geritz; Sara Maetzold; Maren Steffen; Andrea Pilotto; Marta F Corrà; Mariana Moscovich; Maria C Rizzetti; Barbara Borroni; Alessandro Padovani; Annekathrin Alpes; Corinna Bang; Igor Barcellos; Ralf Baron; Thorsten Bartsch; Jos S Becktepe; Daniela Berg; Lu M Bergeest; Philipp Bergmann; Raquel Bouça-Machado; Michael Drey; Morad Elshehabi; Susan Farahmandi; Joaquim J Ferreira; Andre Franke; Anja Friederich; Corinna Geisler; Philipp Hüllemann; Janne Gierthmühlen; Oliver Granert; Sebastian Heinzel; Maren K Heller; Markus A Hobert; Marc Hofmann; Björn Jemlich; Laura Kerkmann; Stephanie Knüpfer; Katharina Krause; Maximilian Kress; Sonja Krupp; Jennifer Kudelka; Gregor Kuhlenbäumer; Roland Kurth; Frank Leypoldt; Corina Maetzler; Luis F Maia; Andreas Moewius; Patricia Neumann; Katharina Niemann; Christian T Ortlieb; Steffen Paschen; Minh H Pham; Thomas Puehler; Franziska Radloff; Christian Riedel; Marten Rogalski; Simone Sablowsky; Elena M Schanz; Linda Schebesta; Andreas Schicketmüller; Simone Studt; Martina Thieves; Lars Tönges; Sebastian Ullrich; Peter P Urban; Nuno Vila-Chã; Anna Wiegard; Elke Warmerdam; Tobias Warnecke; Michael Weiss; Julius Welzel; Clint Hansen; Walter Maetzler Journal: BMC Geriatr Date: 2020-02-06 Impact factor: 3.921