PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
May 3, 2024Journal of science and medicine in sport100 citationsOpen Access

Concurrent validity and test–retest reliability of VALD ForceDecks' strength, balance, and movement assessment tests

TCTyler CollingsYLYuri Lopes LimaBDBenjamin Dutaillis

Key Points

Key points are not available for this paper at this time.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the concurrent validity and test-retest reliability of common movement, strength, and balance tests using portable uniaxial dual force plates. DESIGN: Repeated measures cross-sectional study. METHODS: Sixteen healthy individuals participated in two testing sessions, where they performed 12 different movement, strength, and balance tests. Vertical ground reaction force and centre of pressure data were collected using the VALD ForceDecks simultaneously with ground-embedded laboratory force plates. Concurrent validity was assessed using root mean square error for raw time-series data and Bland-Altman plots for discrete metrics. Test-retest reliability was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients and minimal detectable changes. RESULTS: ForceDecks recorded vertical ground reaction forces and center of pressure with high accuracy compared to laboratory force plates. The mean bias between systems was negligible (0.75). ForceDecks reliability was similar to laboratory force plates (<0.07 intraclass correlation coefficient median difference for all metrics). CONCLUSIONS: Portable uniaxial force plates record highly accurate vertical ground reaction forces and center of pressure during a range of movement, strength, and balance tests. The VALD ForcDecks are a valid and reliable alternative to laboratory force plates when strict standardized testing and data analysis procedures are followed. Users should be aware of the validity and reliability characteristics of the tests and metrics they choose.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Collings et al. (2024) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a5b69db9838a5db88986db4https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsams.2024.04.014
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1Reactive Strength Index and its Associations with Measures of Physical and Sports Performance: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis2021 · 151 citations
  2. 2Smallest real difference, a link between reproducibility and responsiveness2001 · 863 citations
  3. 3QUANTIFYING TEST-RETEST RELIABILITY USING THE INTRACLASS CORRELATION COEFFICIENT AND THE SEM2005 · 1,065 citations
  4. 4THE VALIDATION OF A PORTABLE FORCE PLATE FOR MEASURING FORCE-TIME DATA DURING JUMPING AND LANDING TASKS2006 · 28 citations
  5. 5Calculating sample size for reliability studies2022 · 173 citations