EurekaMag.com logo
+ Site Statistics
References:
53,214,146
Abstracts:
29,074,682
+ Search Articles
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
EurekaMag Most Shared ContentMost Shared
EurekaMag PDF Full Text ContentPDF Full Text
+ PDF Full Text
Request PDF Full TextRequest PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on FacebookFollow on Facebook
Follow on TwitterFollow on Twitter
Follow on Google+Follow on Google+
Follow on LinkedInFollow on LinkedIn

+ Translate

Reliability and validity of an activity monitor (IDEEA) in the determination of temporal-spatial gait parameters in individuals with cerebral palsy


Gait & Posture 28(4): 634-639
Reliability and validity of an activity monitor (IDEEA) in the determination of temporal-spatial gait parameters in individuals with cerebral palsy
This study evaluated within- and between-session reliability and validity of temporal-spatial gait parameters derived from the intelligent device for energy expenditure and activity (IDEEA) activity monitor (Minisun, Fresno, CA) in subjects with cerebral palsy, using three-dimensional gait analysis (3-DGA) as the criterion standard. Twenty-five subjects with cerebral palsy (mean age 14.1 years, range 8-23) and 30 control subjects (mean age 14.2 years, range 7-24) completed two 3-DGA, 1 week apart with simultaneous IDEEA data collection. The IDEEA had lower within-session reliability than the 3-DGA for both groups, indicated by greater measurement errors and wider repeatability values for all temporal-spatial parameters. Between-session reliability of 3-DGA was high for both groups with intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC) >0.80. The IDEEA monitor showed high between-session reliability for control subjects (ICC 0.71-0.89), but lower reliability in subjects with cerebral palsy, particularly for walking velocity and stride length (ICC 0.53 and 0.62, respectively). Validity comparison between IDEEA and 3-DGA measures using Bland Altman 95% limits of agreement showed a measurement bias, with the IDEEA over-estimating step and stride length and underestimating cadence in both subject groups compared to 3-DGA. The 95% limits of agreement were smaller in controls (step +/-0.20 m; stride +/-0.27 m; walking velocity +/-0.28 m/s) than in subjects with cerebral palsy (step +/-0.36 m; stride +/-0.37 m; velocity +/-0.58 m/s). Modifications may be necessary to improve the reliability and validity of the IDEEA in children, particularly for use in neurological conditions.

(PDF same-day service: $19.90)

Accession: 055477483

PMID: 18534854

DOI: 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2008.04.012



Related references

Test-retest reliability of spatial and temporal gait parameters in children with cerebral palsy as measured by an electronic walkway. Gait & Posture 27(1): 43-50, 2007

Concurrent validity and intrasession reliability of the IDEEA accelerometry system for the quantification of spatiotemporal gait parameters. Gait & Posture 27(1): 160-163, 2007

Measuring physical activity in young people with cerebral palsy: validity and reliability of the ActivPAL™ monitor. PhysioTherapy Research International 19(3): 186-192, 2015

Validity and reliability of spatio-temporal gait parameters in adolescents. Iranian Journal of Pediatrics 23(5): 610-611, 2014

Reliability and validity of the Edinburgh Visual Gait Score for cerebral palsy when used by inexperienced observers. Gait & Posture 28(2): 323-326, 2008

Reliability and validity of Edinburgh visual gait score as an evaluation tool for children with cerebral palsy. Gait & Posture 49: 14-18, 2016

Validity of gait parameters for hip flexor contracture in patients with cerebral palsy. Journal of Neuroengineering and Rehabilitation 8(): 4-4, 2011

IDEEA activity monitor: validity of activity recognition for lying, reclining, sitting and standing. Frontiers of Medicine 7(1): 126-131, 2013

Test-retest reliability of discrete gait parameters in children with cerebral palsy. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 91(5): 781-787, 2010

Reliability and validity of the Visual Gait Assessment Scale for children with hemiplegic cerebral palsy when used by experienced and inexperienced observers. Gait & Posture 27(4): 648-652, 2007