Objective assessment of movement competence in children using wearable sensors: An instrumented version of the TGMD-2 locomotor subtest

Abstract

Movement competence (MC) is defined as the development of sufficient skill to assure successful performance in different physical activities. Monitoring children MC during maturation is fundamental to detect early minor delays and define effective intervention. To this purpose, several MC assessment batteries are available. When evaluating movement strategies, with the aim of identifying specific skill components that may need improving, widespread MC assessment is limited by high time consumption for scoring and the need for trained operators to ensure reliability. This work aims to facilitate and support the assessment by designing, implementing and validating an instrumented version of the TGMD-2 locomotor subtest based on Inertial Measurement Units (IMUs) to quantify MC in children rapidly and objectively. 45 typically developing children, aged 6-10, performed the TGMD-2 locomotor subtest (six skills). During the tests, children wore five IMUs mounted on lower back, on ankles and on wrists. Sensor and video recordings of the tests were collected. Three expert evaluators performed the standard assessment of TGMD-2. Using theoretical and modelling approaches, algorithms were implemented to automatically score children tests based on IMUs' data. The automatic assessment, compared to the standard one, showed an agreement higher than 87% on average on the entire group for each skill and a reduction of time for scoring from 15 to 2min per participant. Results support the use of IMUs for MC assessment: this approach will allow improving the usability of MC assessment, supporting objectively evaluator decisions and reducing time requirement for the evaluation of large groups.

A hitchhiker’s guide to assessing young people’s motor competence: Deciding what method to use

“…Other issues pertain to administrative and feasibility aspects (e.g., assessment training, clarity of instruction and scoring, assessment time, required space) and psychometric aspects (e.g., construct validity, convergent validity, test-retest reliability). Contemporary research has begun to focus on developing instrumented versions of test batteries (e.g., Bisi et al 38 ), which integrates motion devices and observation methods for an effective and efficient assessment of young people's motor competence.…”

“…On the other hand, observation can be performed by coaches through the adoption of in-field performance tests and video analysis for direct in-field assessment. Nowadays, the two approaches can be combined through inertial sensing, 38 bringing the accuracy of motion devices to the field and opening the use of motion devices to non-specialist professionals. Inertial sensors capture kinematic/dynamic quantities, can be worn during matches or prolonged activity without capture volume constraints, and allow real-time monitoring.…”

Use of wearable inertial sensors for the assessment of spatiotemporal gait variables in children: A systematic review

“…Twelve cross-sectional studies were included in this review 11,13,17,20,[24][25][26][27][28][29][30] . The reliability of these studies was considered good on nearly all items of the AXIS scale, with suitable systematic interpretations and appropriate evaluations.…”

“…Gait analysis with the use of wearable inertial sensors was performed in a hospital setting 26,30 , outpatient clinic 11,13,17,21,[23][24][25]28,29 and a familiar environment 20,27 , with healthy children 11 divided by age group 17 and sex 20 , children with prelingual deafness 22 , Duchenne muscular dystrophy 24 , idiopathic toe walking 27,28 , spina bifida 13 and cerebral palsy, including those with unilateral or bilateral spasticity 23,25,29 , hemiplegia 30 , diplegia, dystonia 26, and ataxia 21 .…”

Objective profiling of varied human motion based on normative assessment of magnetometer time series data

“…Inertial measurement devices have been used with signal analysis routines to machine-score specific activities or components within a varied activity programme (Bisi et al 2017, Allen et al 2006. This paper presents an alternative, process-oriented quantification of complex motion in which pairwise comparison of individuals is made using time trace correlations of position sensor data (Barnes et al 2016).…”