Improving between‐day kinematic reliability using a marker placement device

3D motion analysis is commonly used to measure clinical outcomes, involving repeated measures over time. However, the day‐to‐day reliability of these measurements has been questioned and few attempts have been made to improve this reliability. Our purpose was to determine if a marker placement device (MPD) could improve day‐to‐day kinematic reliability as compared to manual marker placement. Ten healthy runners participated. Day‐to‐day comparisons of peak angles were made between manual marker placement and the use of an MPD. Reliability of each method was determined with intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and standard errors of measurement (SEM). The ICC and SEM values improved with the MPD. With the MPD, 7 out of 9 ICC values were >0.9 compared to only 3 when using manual marker placement. Additionally, the largest reduction in SEM values was in the transverse plane. Use of the MPD increases the power to detect smaller differences in studies of where gait is assessed over time. © 2010 Orthopaedic Research Society. Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Orthop Res 28:1405–1410, 2010

[1]  R. Ferber,et al.  A comparison of within‐ and between‐day reliability of discrete 3D lower extremity variables in runners , 2002, Journal of orthopaedic research : official publication of the Orthopaedic Research Society.

[2]  David G Lloyd,et al.  Repeatability of gait data using a functional hip joint centre and a mean helical knee axis. , 2003, Journal of biomechanics.

[3]  H. K. Ramakrishnan,et al.  Repeatability of kinematic, kinetic, and electromyographic data in normal adult gait , 1989, Journal of orthopaedic research : official publication of the Orthopaedic Research Society.

[4]  Joyce P Trost,et al.  Measurement and management of errors in quantitative gait data. , 2004, Gait & posture.

[5]  V Maynard,et al.  Intra-rater and inter-rater reliability of gait measurements with CODA mpx30 motion analysis system. , 2003, Gait & posture.

[6]  T. Hewett,et al.  Reliability of landing 3D motion analysis: implications for longitudinal analyses. , 2007, Medicine and science in sports and exercise.

[7]  Aurelio Cappozzo,et al.  Bone position and orientation errors: pelvis and lower limb anatomical landmark identification reliability , 1997 .

[8]  A. Cappozzo,et al.  Pelvis and lower limb anatomical landmark calibration precision and its propagation to bone geometry and joint angles , 1999, Medical & Biological Engineering & Computing.

[9]  George E Gorton,et al.  Assessment of the kinematic variability among 12 motion analysis laboratories. , 2009, Gait & posture.

[10]  Jennifer L Hicks,et al.  Clinical applicability of using spherical fitting to find hip joint centers. , 2005, Gait & posture.

[11]  M. Morris,et al.  The reliability of three-dimensional kinematic gait measurements: a systematic review. , 2009, Gait & posture.

[12]  P R Cavanagh,et al.  Accuracy of the functional method of hip joint center location: effects of limited motion and varied implementation. , 2001, Journal of biomechanics.

[13]  L. Portney,et al.  Foundations of Clinical Research , 1993 .