Test-retest reliability of force plate-derived measures of reactive stepping. (22nd January 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Saumur, Tyler M.; Mathur, Sunita; Nestico, Jacqueline; Perry, Stephen D.; Mochizuki, George; Mansfield, Avril
• Is Part Of: Journal of biomechanics. Volume 115(2021)
• Publication Date: 2021-01-22
• Subjects: Postural balance -- Test-retest reliability -- Centre of pressure -- Biomechanics -- Restabilization -- Reactive balance control; Animal mechanics -- Periodicals; Biomechanics -- Periodicals; Biomechanics -- Periodicals; Mécanique animale -- Périodiques; Biomécanique -- Périodiques; Electronic journals; 571.4305
• DOI: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2020.110185
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0021-9290

Abstract

Abstract: Characterizing reactive stepping is important to describe the response's effectiveness . Timing of reactive step initiation, execution, and termination have been frequently reported to characterize reactive balance control. However, the test–retest reliabilities of these measures are unknown. Accordingly, the purpose of this study was to determine the between- and within-session test–retest reliabilities of various force plate-derived measures of reactive stepping. Nineteen young, healthy adults responded to 6 small (~8–10% of body weight) and 6 large perturbations (~13–15% of body weight) using an anterior lean-and-release system. Tests were conducted during two visits separated by at least two days. Participants were instructed to recover balance in as few steps as possible. Step onset, foot-off, swing, and restabilization times were extracted from force plates. Relative test–retest reliability was determined through intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Absolute test–retest reliability was assessed using the standard error of the measurement (SEM). Foot-off and swing times had the highest between- and within-session test–retest reliabilities regardless of perturbation size (between-session ICC = 0.898–0.942; within-session ICC = 0.455–0.753). Conversely, step onset and restabilization times had lower ICCs and wider CIs (between-session ICC = 0.495–0.825; within-session ICC = -0.040–0.174). Between-session test–retest reliability was higher (ICC = 0.495–0.942) for all measures than within-session test–retest reliability (ICC = -0.040–0.753). Time to restabilization had the highest SEM, indicating the worst absolute reliability of the measures. These findings suggest multiple baseline sessions are needed for measuring restabilization and step onset times. The minimal detectable changes reported provide an index for measuring meaningful change due to an intervention.