C M Bauer1, F M Rast2, M J Ernst2, J Kool2, S Oetiker2, S M Rissanen3, J H Suni4, M Kankaanpää5. 1. Zurich University of Applied Sciences, Department of Health, Institute of Physiotherapy, Technikumstrasse 71, 8400 Winterthur, Switzerland; University of Tampere, School of Medicine, Kalevantie 4, FI-33014 University of Tampere, Finland. Electronic address: christoph.bauer@zhaw.ch. 2. Zurich University of Applied Sciences, Department of Health, Institute of Physiotherapy, Technikumstrasse 71, 8400 Winterthur, Switzerland. 3. University of Eastern Finland, Department of Applied Physics, University of Eastern Finland, P.O. Box 1627, 70211 Kuopio, Finland. Electronic address: saara.rissanen@uef.fi. 4. UKK Institute for Health Promotion Research, Kaupinpuistonkatu 1, 33500 Tampere, Finland. Electronic address: jaana.h.suni@uta.fi. 5. University of Tampere, School of Medicine, Kalevantie 4, FI-33014 University of Tampere, Finland; Tampere University Hospital, Department of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine, Tampere University Hospital, P.O. Box 2000, 33521 Tampere, Finland. Electronic address: markku.kankaanpaa@pshp.fi.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Assessment of movement dysfunctions commonly comprises trunk range of motion (ROM), movement or control impairment (MCI), repetitive movements (RM), and reposition error (RE). Inertial measurement unit (IMU)-systems could be used to quantify these movement dysfunctions in clinical settings. The aim of this study was to evaluate a novel IMU-system when assessing movement dysfunctions in terms of concurrent validity and reliability. METHODS: The concurrent validity of the IMU-system was tested against an optoelectronic system with 22 participants. The reliability of 14 movement dysfunction tests were analysed using generalizability theory and coefficient of variation, measuring 24 participants in seven trials on two days. RESULTS: The IMU-system provided valid estimates of trunk movement in the primary movement direction when compared to the optoelectronic system. Reliability varied across tests and variables. On average, ROM and RM were more reliable, compared to MCI and RE tests. DISCUSSION: When compared to the optoelectronic system, the IMU-system is valid for estimates of trunk movement in the primary movement direction. Four ROM, two MCI, one RM, and one RE test were identified as reliable and should be studied further for inter-subject comparisons and monitoring changes after an intervention.
INTRODUCTION: Assessment of movement dysfunctions commonly comprises trunk range of motion (ROM), movement or control impairment (MCI), repetitive movements (RM), and reposition error (RE). Inertial measurement unit (IMU)-systems could be used to quantify these movement dysfunctions in clinical settings. The aim of this study was to evaluate a novel IMU-system when assessing movement dysfunctions in terms of concurrent validity and reliability. METHODS: The concurrent validity of the IMU-system was tested against an optoelectronic system with 22 participants. The reliability of 14 movement dysfunction tests were analysed using generalizability theory and coefficient of variation, measuring 24 participants in seven trials on two days. RESULTS: The IMU-system provided valid estimates of trunk movement in the primary movement direction when compared to the optoelectronic system. Reliability varied across tests and variables. On average, ROM and RM were more reliable, compared to MCI and RE tests. DISCUSSION: When compared to the optoelectronic system, the IMU-system is valid for estimates of trunk movement in the primary movement direction. Four ROM, two MCI, one RM, and one RE test were identified as reliable and should be studied further for inter-subject comparisons and monitoring changes after an intervention.
Authors: Jorge Posada-Ordax; Julia Cosin-Matamoros; Marta Elena Losa-Iglesias; Ricardo Becerro-de-Bengoa-Vallejo; Laura Esteban-Gonzalo; Carlos Martin-Villa; César Calvo-Lobo; David Rodriguez-Sanz Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2021-04-21 Impact factor: 4.241
Authors: Ruud A Leijendekkers; Thomas J Hoogeboom; Gerben van Hinte; Lars Didden; Thomas Anijs; Maria W G Nijhuis-van der Sanden; Nico Verdonschot Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-05-21 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Philipp M Schmid; Christoph M Bauer; Markus J Ernst; Bettina Sommer; Lars Lünenburger; Martin Weisenhorn Journal: Sensors (Basel) Date: 2021-05-10 Impact factor: 3.576