Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Concurrent Validity and Test–Retest Reliability of Pressure-Detecting Insoles for Static and Dynamic Movements in Healthy Young Adults
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Concurrent Validity and Test–Retest Reliability of Pressure-Detecting Insoles for Static and Dynamic Movements in Healthy Young Adults
Do you wish to request the book?
Concurrent Validity and Test–Retest Reliability of Pressure-Detecting Insoles for Static and Dynamic Movements in Healthy Young Adults
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Concurrent Validity and Test–Retest Reliability of Pressure-Detecting Insoles for Static and Dynamic Movements in Healthy Young Adults
2023
Overview
Compared to force-plates, pressure-detecting insoles have the advantage that vertical ground reaction force (vGRF) can be estimated under field rather than laboratory conditions. However, the question arises whether insoles also provide valid and reliable results compared to a force-plate (i.e., the gold standard). The study aimed to investigate the concurrent validity and test–retest reliability of pressure-detecting insoles during static and dynamic movements. Twenty-two healthy young adults (12 females) performed standing, walking, running, and jumping movements while simultaneously collecting pressure (GP MobilData WiFi, GeBioM mbH, Münster, Germany) and force (Kistler®) data twice, 10 days apart. Concerning validity, ICC values showed excellent agreement (ICC > 0.75), irrespective of the test condition. Further, the insoles underestimated (mean bias: −4.41 to −37.15%) most of the vGRF variables. Concerning reliability, ICC values for nearly all test conditions also showed excellent agreement, and the SEM was rather low. Lastly, most of the MDC95% values were low (≤5%). The predominantly excellent ICC values for between-devices (i.e., concurrent validity) and between-visits (i.e., test–retest reliability) comparisons suggest that the tested pressure-detecting insoles can be used under field-based conditions for a valid and reliable estimation of relevant vGRF variables during standing, walking, running, and jumping.
