4.2 Article

Validity and reliability of a smartphone motion analysis app for lower limb kinematics during treadmill running

Journal

PHYSICAL THERAPY IN SPORT
Volume 43, Issue -, Pages 27-35

Publisher

CHURCHILL LIVINGSTONE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ptsp.2020.02.003

Keywords

Gait; Biomechanics; Video analysis; Two-dimensional

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To investigate the validity and reliability of a smartphone application for selected lower-limb kinematics during treadmill running. Design: Validity and reliability study. Setting: Biomechanics laboratory. Participants: Twenty healthy female runners. Main outcome measure(s): Sagittal-plane hip, knee, and ankle angle and rearfoot eversion were assessed using the Coach's Eye Smartphone application and a 3D motion capture system. Paired t-test and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) established criterion validity of Coach's Eye; ICC determined testretest and intrarater/interrater reliability. Standard error of measurement (SEM) and minimal detectable change (MDC) were also reported. Results: Significant differences were found between Coach's Eye and 3D measurements for ankle angle at touchdown and knee angle at toe-off (p < 0.05). ICCs for validity of Coach's Eye were excellent for rearfoot eversion at touchdown (ICC = 0.79) and fair-to-good for the other kinematics (range 0.51-0.74), except for hip at touchdown, which was poor (ICC = 0.36). Test-retest (range 0.80-0.92), intrarater (range 0.95-0.99) and interrater (range 0.87-0.94) ICC results were excellent for all selected kinematics. Conclusion: Coach's Eye can be used as a surrogate for 3D measures of knee and rearfoot in/eversion at touchdown, and hip, ankle, and rearfoot in/eversion at toe-off, but not for hip and ankle at touchdown or knee at toe-off. Reliable running kinematics were obtained using Coach's Eye, making it suitable for repeated measures. (C) 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available