Variability in gait measurements across multiple sites

Chambers, Carol; Goode, Barry

doi:10.1016/0966-6362(96)80573-x

Cited by 11 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Slight deviations in marker placement alter the orientation of the JCS about which the angular displacement of each segments is calculated, leading to inconsistent joint angle measurements. The findings of Gorton et al (2009) are in agreement with previous studies showing the combination of between-examiner and betweenday deviations in marker placement plays a critical role in the consistency of resulting data (Chambers & Goode, 1996; Della Croce, Leardini, Chiari, & Cappozzo, 2005;McGinley et al, 2009).…”

Section: List Of Figures and Illustrationssupporting

confidence: 91%

“…Only data from seven locations were suitable for analysis, and these seven locations showed high levels of consistency as the average standard deviation for all joint angles measured was 0.5° across locations. Gorton et al (2009) show that a properly configured and calibrated motion capture system contributes negligible error even for a multi-centre collaboration, and confirm the assumptions of previous research (Chambers & Goode, 1996) (Figure 2-2).…”

Section: Within-subjectsupporting

confidence: 86%

“…It is possible that even slight differences in walking velocity could influence gait variability (Jordan, Challis, & Newell, 2007), which was unaccounted for, and a potential source of error. However, the authors suggested that the use of a metronome to maintain constant velocity would have created a less natural walking pattern, perhaps adding to the inconsistency between sites (Gorton et al, 2009) The conclusion that marker placement deviations between-examiner and between-session play a critical role in gait kinematic inconsistency echoes what other groups have previously speculated (Chambers & Goode, 1996;Della Croce et al, 2005;McGinley et al, 2009). An early assessment of between-examiner error was completed by Chambers & Goode (1996), in an effort to determine the feasibility of multi-centre collaboration.…”

Section: Between-examiner (Marker Placement Error)mentioning

confidence: 86%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The use of real-time feedback to improve kinematic marker placement consistency among novice examiners

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Marker placement deviation has been shown to be the largest source of error in gait kinematic data, limiting the ability of clinicians and researchers to conduct between-day or between-center investigations. Prior marker-placement standardization methods are either impractical for a clinical setting or rely on expert marker placement. However, a recently developed, real-time feedback tool has been developed and shown to improve marker placement and downstream kinematic calculations. The purpose of this study was to determine whether this real-time marker-placement tool could improve the consistency of gait kinematic data collected by a group of novice examiners. Twelve novice examiners identified anatomical landmarks and placed retroreflective markers on a single subject. For each examiner, a running trial was analyzed separately using two static trials: (1) PRE and (2) POST implementation of the feedback tool. The protocol was repeated a second time, one week later. Between-examiner consistency was represented by the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the mean joint angles for the entire stride, and compared between the PRE and POST conditions. The POST feedback trials showed an average 27.45% reduction of the 95%CI range for eight out of nine joint angles on day one, and an average 24.73% for five out of nine joint angles on day two, compared to POST. The results indicate a real-time feedback tool improves the consistency in marker placement for novice users.

show abstract

Section: List Of Figures and Illustrationssupporting

confidence: 91%

Section: Within-subjectsupporting

confidence: 86%

Section: Between-examiner (Marker Placement Error)mentioning

confidence: 86%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The use of real-time feedback to improve kinematic marker placement consistency among novice examiners

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In addition, according to Gorton at al. [6] and Chambers and Goode [18], the accuracy of measurement systems used, if not properly configured and calibrated, can influence the variability of results to a small extent. Finally, variability may be influenced by other, unidentified factors.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Inter-examiner, within-session and between-session repeatability of kinematic gait parameters among adult subjects

Leszczewska¹,

Czaprowski²,

Pawłowska³

et al. 2018

Hum Mov.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose. This research aimed to assess the repeatability of results obtained when analysing gait by means of a system designed for objective gait analysis in a single laboratory setting by a single examiner within-session and between-sessions. Methods. For the purpose of this research, the bTs smart-D movement analysis system, produced by Capture Motion system of Italy, was used. Four healthy adults were examined. The subjects took part in three gait analysis testing sessions, with each session separated by a two-day break. During each session, two sets of measurements were taken for each subject. statistical analysis was performed with statsoft's statistica 7.1 software. Results. Within each session, all examined temporal and spatial parameters were found to be repeatable. Only in hip and knee joint rotation was repeatability not confirmed within session. between the sessions, repeatability was confirmed in pelvic rotation, abduction/adduction of the knee joint and for all foot kinematic parameters. Conclusions. Conducting gait analysis by one researcher does not guarantee obtaining repeatable results for all measured kinematic parameters, either within one session or between sessions; caution ought to be exercised when interpreting results. Among the studied parameters, hip and knee joint rotation provided the most difficulty in obtaining repeatable results. For this reason, diagnostic and therapeutic decisions based on such data require the utmost consideration.

show abstract

“…Chambers and Goode [5] investigated the variability of kinematic measurements among five sites. More than 90% of the variability was from marker placement differences and minimal variability was attributed to system accuracy.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%