↓ Skip to main content

The Validity, Reliability, and Sensitivity of a Smartphone-Based Seated Postural Control Assessment in Wheelchair Users: A Pilot Study

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Sports and Active Living, December 2020
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (84th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (64th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
39 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The Validity, Reliability, and Sensitivity of a Smartphone-Based Seated Postural Control Assessment in Wheelchair Users: A Pilot Study
Published in
Frontiers in Sports and Active Living, December 2020
DOI 10.3389/fspor.2020.540930
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mikaela L. Frechette, Libak Abou, Laura A. Rice, Jacob J. Sosnoff

Abstract

Seated postural control is essential for wheelchair users to maintain proper position while performing activities of daily living. Clinical tests are commonly used to measure seated postural control, yet they are subjective and lack sensitivity. Lab-based measures are highly sensitive but are limited in scope and restricted to research settings. Establishing a valid, reliable, and accessible measurement tool of seated postural control is necessary for remote, objective assessments. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to examine the validity, reliability, and sensitivity of smartphone-based postural control assessments in wheelchair users. Eleven participants (age: 35.4 ± 17.9) completed two experimental visits 1-week apart consisting of three clinical tests: Trunk Control Test (TCT), Function in Sitting Test (FIST), and Tee-shirt Test, as well as, standardized instrumented balance tasks that manipulated vision (eyes open and closed), and trunk movement (functional reach and stability boundary). During these tasks, participants held a smartphone instrumented with a research-grade accelerometer to their chest. Maximum and root mean square (RMS) acceleration in the medial-lateral (ML) and anterior-posterior (AP) axes were derived. Participants were grouped into non-impaired and impaired postural groups based on FIST scores. Spearman rank-order correlations were conducted between the two devices' outcome measurements and between these measures and those of the clinical tests. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves and the area under the curves (AUC) were determined to distinguish participants with and without impaired postural control. The reliability of outcome variables was assessed using inter-class correlations. Strong correlations between outputs derived from the smartphone and research-grade accelerometer were seen across balance tasks (ρ = -0.75-1.00; p ≤ 0.01). Numerous significant moderate correlations between clinical test outcomes and smartphone and research-grade RMS ML accelerometry were seen (ρ = -0.62 to 0.83 (p ≤ 0.044)]. On both devices, the AUC for ROC plots were significant for RMS ML sway during the eyes open task and functional stability boundary (p < 0.05). Reliability of smartphone accelerometry was comparable to the research-grade accelerometer and clinical tests. This pilot study illustrated that smartphone-based accelerometry may be able to provide a valid and reliable assessment of seated postural control and have the ability to distinguish between those with and without impaired postural control.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 39 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 15%
Other 3 8%
Student > Bachelor 2 5%
Unspecified 2 5%
Other 6 15%
Unknown 12 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 13%
Sports and Recreations 5 13%
Engineering 2 5%
Neuroscience 2 5%
Other 5 13%
Unknown 12 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 February 2021.
All research outputs
#2,857,513
of 23,237,082 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Sports and Active Living
#253
of 1,260 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#74,210
of 474,703 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Sports and Active Living
#25
of 70 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,237,082 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,260 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 474,703 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 70 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.