4.6 Article

Instrumented Static and Dynamic Balance Assessment after Stroke Using Wii Balance Boards: Reliability and Association with Clinical Tests

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 9, 期 12, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0115282

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Health and Medical Research Council

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and Objectives: The Wii Balance Board (WBB) is a globally accessible device that shows promise as a clinically useful balance assessment tool. Although the WBB has been found to be comparable to a laboratory-grade force platform for obtaining centre of pressure data, it has not been comprehensively studied in clinical populations. The aim of this study was to investigate the measurement properties of tests utilising the WBB in people after stroke. Methods: Thirty individuals who were more than three months post-stroke and able to stand unsupported were recruited from a single outpatient rehabilitation facility. Participants performed standardised assessments incorporating the WBB and customised software (static stance with eyes open and closed, static weight-bearing asymmetry, dynamic mediolateral weight shifting and dynamic sit-to-stand) in addition to commonly employed clinical tests (10 Metre Walk Test, Timed Up and Go, Step Test and Functional Reach) on two testing occasions one week apart. Test-retest reliability and construct validity of the WBB tests were investigated. Results: All WBB-based outcomes were found to be highly reliable between testing occasions (ICC =0.82 to 0.98). Correlations were poor to moderate between WBB variables and clinical tests, with the strongest associations observed between task-related activities, such as WBB mediolateral weight shifting and the Step Test. Conclusions: The WBB, used with customised software, is a reliable and potentially useful tool for the assessment of balance and weight-bearing asymmetry following stroke. Future research is recommended to further investigate validity and responsiveness.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据