ArticleHuman movement science2024
Reliability and validity of the force intersection point in the assessment of human quiet standing balance.
Article in Human movement science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThis study evaluated psychometric properties of the Intersection Point Height, derived from ground-on-feet force characteristics, as a tool for assessing balance control. We compare this metric with traditional center of pressure (CP) measurements.
methodsData from a public dataset of 146 participants, divided into younger (<60 years old) and older (≥60 years old) adults, were analyzed. Clinical tests included the Short Falls Efficacy Scale-International, International Physical Activity Questionnaire-Short Form, Trail Making Tests A and B, and the Mini-Balance Evaluation Systems Test. Reliability and validity were assessed through the intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC[3,1]) for mean Intersection Point Height in each test condition and Spearman's rho between summative Intersection Point Height (the sum of intra-condition mean values across all test conditions within one subject) and other variables of interest, respectively.
findingsMean Intersection Point Height showed good to excellent reliability (ICC = 0.712-0.901), similar to that of CP velocity (ICC = 0.733-0.922) and greater than that of variance CPx (0.475-0.768). Summative Intersection Point Height exhibited strong convergent validity with Trail Making Tests A and B (rho = 0.49, p < 0.001) and the Mini-Balance Evaluation Systems Test (rho = -0.47, p < 0.001). At most, a weak to moderate association (rho = 0.39-0.49, p < 0.001) was found between intra-condition mean Intersection Point Height with CP metrics. Intra-condition mean Intersection Point Height demonstrated weak to moderate convergent validity with several clinical measures (rho = 0.32-0.52, p < 0.001). In contrast, at most, a weak to moderate association (rho = 0.39-0.49, p < 0.001) was found between intra-condition mean Intersection Point Height with CP metrics.
interpretationThe Intersection Point Height is a reliable and valid balance measure. Further, we believe that it is a more comprehensive evaluation than CP metrics.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.