Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35784798›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in sports and active living2022

Accuracy vs. Practicality of Inertial Measurement Unit Sensors to Evaluate Motor Competence in Children.

Natalie Lander, Darius Nahavandi, Nicole G Toomey, Lisa M Barnett, Shady Mohamed

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in sports and active living, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 19% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Natalie LanderFaculty of Health, Institute for Physical Activity and Nutrition, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC, Australia.
Darius NahavandiInstitute for Intelligent Systems Research and Innovation, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC, Australia.
Nicole G ToomeyInstitute for Intelligent Systems Research and Innovation, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC, Australia.
Lisa M BarnettFaculty of Health, School of Health and Social Development, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC, Australia.
Shady MohamedInstitute for Intelligent Systems Research and Innovation, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC, Australia.
Deakin University · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The TGMD (i.e., Test of Gross Motor Development) has been considered as one of the gold standards of assessment tools for analysis of motor competence in children. However, it is rarely used by teachers in schools because the time, resources, and expertise required for one teacher to assess a class of students is prohibitive in most cases. A potential solution may be to automate the testing protocol using objective measures and inertial measurement unit sensors. An accurate method using 17 sensors to capture full body motion profiles and machine learning methods to objectively assess proficiency has been developed; however, feasibility of this method was low. Subsequently, a simplified method using four sensors (i.e., attached to wrists and ankles) was found to be effective, efficient, and potentially highly feasible for use in school settings. For some skills, however, not all skill criteria could be assessed. Additionally, misclassification on occasion, marred results. In the present paper we consider a previous experiment that used wireless motion capture to assess criteria from the TGMD-3. We discuss the advantages alongside the disadvantages of testing motor competence in children using sensors and consider the question-Can a compromise be struck between accuracy and feasibility?

Indexed as

accuracyfeasibilitymachine learningschoolsTGMDTGMD-3

Identifiers

PMID35784798
PMCPMC9240344
OpenAlexW4282914999

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.