Comparative analysis of postural control and vertical jump performance between three different measurement devices

• Published in: PloS one 2019-09, Vol.14 (9), p.e0222502-e0222502
• Main Authors: Blosch, Christopher, Schäfer, Robin, de Marées, Markus, Platen, Petra
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Adult; Balance; Bias; Biology and Life Sciences; Biometry - instrumentation; Biometry - methods; Body mass; Change detection; Comparative analysis; Computer & video games; Computer and Information Sciences; Correlation coefficient; Correlation coefficients; Devices; Engineering and Technology; Error analysis; Error detection; Feasibility studies; Female; Force plates; Gait; Humans; Jumping; Laboratories; Male; Measurement methods; Measuring instruments; Medicine; Medicine and Health Sciences; Methods; Middle Aged; Nutrition; Postural Balance - physiology; Posture; Posture - physiology; Reliability analysis; Reproducibility of Results; Research and Analysis Methods; Sports medicine; Standard error; Validity
• ISSN: 1932-6203; 1932-6203
• DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0222502

The aim of this study was to examine the concurrent validity of the HUMAC Balance System (HBS) and Balance Trainer BTG4 (BTG) in comparison to a laboratory-grade force platform (FP) for postural control (PC) and vertical jump performance (VJP) assessment. In addition, reliability of the three devices was measured for PC. Overall 22 participants (age = 37.8 ± 13.3 years; gender = 9 male, 13 female; height = 174.1 ± 10.5 cm; body mass = 75.3 ± 17.6 kg) were recruited to participate. Double and single leg standing balance tests with eyes open or closed and counter movement jumps (CMJ) were performed on two separate occasions. Reliability and concurrent validity for COP parameters and VJP were examined using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC), Bland-Altman plots (BAP), standard error of measurement (SEM) and minimum detectable change (MDC). COP path length test-retest reliability was predominantly good to excellent for all three devices (ICC = 0.80-0.95). SEM and MDC values were high for all plates (SEM% = 8.0-15.2; MDC% = 22.8-44.5), with the HBS MDC values higher than the KIS and BTG in three of the four trials. ICC scores for concurrent validity were good to excellent for the BTG (ICC = 0.76-0.93) and moderate to good for the HBS (0.49-0.83). Band-Altman plots revealed a systematic bias for the HBS towards higher COP path length values under all conditions and for the BTG in two out of four trials towards lower values. Validity of VJP was excellent for the BTG (ICC = 1.0) and poor for the HBS (0.34), with a systematic bias towards lower values. The comparative analysis of PC and VJP revealed reliable and valid results for the BTG in comparison to a laboratory-grade force plate. The HBS showed reliable results for PC assessment with restrictions regarding its validity. Results of VJP showed that the HBS revealed deficits in the assessment of activities that require rapid, high force movements such as jumping and running. Due to the variable results of all three devices, it is recommended not to use them interchangeably.