Normative values for the Sensory Organization Test in an active duty military cohort

Roberts, Holly; Hoppes, Carrie W.; Toro, Yadira M. Del; Lambert, Karen H; Springer, Barbara A.

doi:10.1016/j.gaitpost.2021.01.014

Cited by 7 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 45 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These findings should be replicated with a comparable group to account for age-, TSI-, and sex-related differences following a TBI. Additionally, unique to SMs, Roberts et al [ 48 ] suggested within-group variability on occupational characteristics, such as differences in occupational specialties and training experiences, may cause variability in the objective performance.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Non-Concordance of Self-Reported and Performance-Based Measures of Vestibular Dysfunction in Military and Civilian Populations Following TBI

Wood

Hentig

Hager³

et al. 2022

JCM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As a predominately young, physically active, and generally healthy population, service members (SMs) with vestibular dysfunction (VD) following a TBI may not be accurately represented by the current civilian reference ranges on assessments of VD. This study enrolled SMs who were referred for vestibular rehabilitation following a mild/moderate TBI. The participants self-reported VD using the Activities-specific Balance Confidence (ABC) scale and the Dizziness Handicap Inventory (DHI) followed by evaluation of vestibular performance using computerized dynamic posturography sensory organizational test (CDP–SOT). Retrospective analysis of these outcomes comparing the study sample of SMs to the reported civilian samples revealed SMs self-reported lower VD with significantly higher balance confidence (ABC: 77.11 ± 14.61, p < 0.05) and lower dizziness (DHI: 37.75 ± 11.74, p < 0.05) than civilians. However, the SMs underperformed in performance-based evaluations compared to civilians with significantly lower CDP–SOT composite and ratio scores (COMP: 68.46 ± 13.46, p < 0.05; VIS: 81.36 ± 14.03, p < 0.01; VEST: 55.63 ± 22.28, p < 0.05; SOM: 90.46 ± 10.17, p < 0.05). Correlational analyses identified significant relationships between the ABC and CDP–SOT composite (r = 0.380, p < 0.01) and ratio scores (VIS: r = 0.266, p < 0.05; VEST: r = 0.352, p < 0.01). These results highlight the importance of recognizing and understanding nuances in assessing VD in SMs to ensure they have access to adequate care and rehabilitation prior to returning to duty.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Non-Concordance of Self-Reported and Performance-Based Measures of Vestibular Dysfunction in Military and Civilian Populations Following TBI

Wood

Hentig

Hager³

et al. 2022

JCM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The COMP score represents the weighted average sway measured under all 6 testing conditions and the SOM, VIS, and VEST ratio scores are calculated by comparing select conditions (5, 4, and 2, respectively) to reference condition one during which all sensory modalities are available and unaltered. The COMP score ranges from 0 to 100, higher scores indicate better overall sensory integration and balance performance, and scores at or above 80 are considered normal 34. The ratio scores represent participants' ability to use input from the respective sensory system for balance maintenance when input from the other systems is either altered or absent.…”

Section: Vestibular Outcome Assessment Batterymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The COMP score ranges from 0 to 100, higher scores indicate better overall sensory integration and balance performance, and scores at or above 80 are considered normal. 34 The ratio scores represent participants' ability to use input from the respective sensory system for balance maintenance when input from the other systems is either altered or absent. The COMP has demonstrated excellent test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] = 0.83) and the ratio scores have demonstrated moderate testretest reliability (ie, SOM = 0.58, VIS = 0.65, and VEST = 0.68).…”

Section: Sensory Organization Testmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Comparison of Generalized and Individualized Vestibular Rehabilitation Therapy in a Military TBI Sample

Vegt

Hill-Pearson²,

Hershaw³

et al. 2022

Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To compare clinical outcomes between active duty service members receiving generalized versus individualized vestibular rehabilitation treatment (GVRT and IVRT, respectively) for persistent vestibular-related symptoms following mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI). Setting: An outpatient TBI rehabilitation clinic. Participants: Fiftyseven participants with persistent vestibular-related symptoms following mTBI were randomly assigned to the GVRT (n = 28) or IVRT (n = 29) group, stratified by dizziness-related impairment severity. Forty-two participants (n = 21 per group) completed the posttreatment evaluation and were included in analyses. Design: We employed a singlesite, randomized, pre-/posttest experimental design. The GVRT program consisted of eight 45-minute group-based treatment sessions and IVRT consisted of three 30-minute one-on-one treatment sessions both to be completed within 8 weeks. Group assignment was not blinded to study personnel or participants. Research evaluations were completed approximately 2 weeks prior to treatment initiation and following treatment completion. Main Measures: Outcome measures included Dizziness Handicap Inventory (DHI) and Activities-specific Balance Confidence Scale (ABC) total scores, Sensory Organization Test (SOT) composite equilibrium and sensory input ratio scores, Head Shake SOT (HS-SOT) conditions 2 and 5, and horizontal and vertical Dynamic Visual Acuity. Separate mixedeffects models were used to compare clinical outcomes between the GVRT and IVRT groups. Results: Both groups demonstrated significant improvement from pre-to posttreatment on self-reported dizziness-related impairment (DHI [F (1,41) = 16.28, P < .001]) and balance performance with and without head movement (composite equilibrium score [F (1,41) = 16.58, P < .001, effect size [ES] = 0.43], somatosensory [F (1,41) = 6.79, P = .013, ES = 0.26], visual [F (1,41) = 6.49, P = .015, ES = 0.29], vestibular [F (1,41) = 22.31, P < .001, ES = 0.55], and HS-SOT condition 5 [F (1,38) = 23.98, P < .001, ES = 0.64]). Treatment effects did not differ between groups on any of the outcome measures. Conclusions: We provide preliminary evidence that differences in clinical outcomes do not exist between participants receiving generalized versus individualized VR. Further research is needed to determine comparative effectiveness between these 2 treatment approaches for persistent vestibular-related symptoms following mTBI.

show abstract

Gleichgewichtstestung

Ruhe

2023

Die Gehirnerschütterung

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Normative values for the Sensory Organization Test in an active duty military cohort

Cited by 7 publications

References 45 publications

The Non-Concordance of Self-Reported and Performance-Based Measures of Vestibular Dysfunction in Military and Civilian Populations Following TBI

The Non-Concordance of Self-Reported and Performance-Based Measures of Vestibular Dysfunction in Military and Civilian Populations Following TBI

A Comparison of Generalized and Individualized Vestibular Rehabilitation Therapy in a Military TBI Sample

Gleichgewichtstestung

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About