Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/11434/994
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorWilliams, Gavin-
dc.contributor.otherMorris, Meg-
dc.contributor.otherMcCrory, Paul-
dc.contributor.otherSchache, Anthony-
dc.date2008-01-27-
dc.date.accessioned2017-02-24T00:52:12Z-
dc.date.available2017-02-24T00:52:12Z-
dc.date.issued2009-04-
dc.identifier.citationGait Posture. 2009 Apr;29(3):454-9.en_US
dc.identifier.issn0966-6362en_US
dc.identifier.issn1879-2219en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11434/994-
dc.description.abstractObjective: To determine the accuracy of clinicians’ visual observations of gait disorders following traumatic brain injury (TBI). Methods: 30 ambulant participants (sample of convenience) receiving physiotherapy for mobility limitations following TBI and 25 age, height, weight and sex matched healthy unimpaired controls (HC) were recruited. Kinematic and ground reaction force data during gait were captured and video recordings were concurrently collected. Participants with TBI walked at self-selected speed whilst HCs walked at preferred speed as well as the mean TBI speed for comparison. 40 doctors, experienced physiotherapists, new graduate physiotherapists and novices were observers. Each viewed and rated 36 gait variables for a randomized sub-sample of 10 participants with TBI. Observer inaccuracy was calculated for each gait variable. Results Overall the accuracy of observational gait analysis was low and there was considerable variability in observations between clinicians. For most kinematic variables, observer inaccuracy ranged from 30% to 50%. Although experienced observers were generally more accurate, average inter-item correlations were low, indicating that experience did not consistently improve the accuracy of visual observations. Observational plane, gait variable type, the joint or the segment had little effect on accuracy of observations. Conclusions: Observational gait analysis for adults with TBI has relatively low accuracy. Some of the gait abnormalities evident from quantitative gait analysis were not detected by observational gait analysis.en_US
dc.publisherElsevieren_US
dc.subjectBrain Injuriesen_US
dc.subjectTraumatic Brain Injuryen_US
dc.subjectTBIen_US
dc.subjectGait Analysisen_US
dc.subjectPhysiopathologyen_US
dc.subjectBiomechanical Phenomenaen_US
dc.subjectObservational Gait Analysisen_US
dc.subjectInstrumented Gait Analysisen_US
dc.subjectQuantitative Gait Analysisen_US
dc.subjectGait Disordersen_US
dc.subjectGait Abnormalitiesen_US
dc.subjectGait Deviationsen_US
dc.subjectVideo Recordingen_US
dc.subjectGaiten_US
dc.subjectValidityen_US
dc.subjectMotion analysisen_US
dc.subjectPhysiotherapistsen_US
dc.subjectObserver Variationen_US
dc.subjectObserver Reliablityen_US
dc.subjectKinematic and Ground Reaction Force Dataen_US
dc.subjectRehabilitation, Mental Health and Chronic Pain Clinical Institute, Epworth HealthCare, Victoria, Australiaen_US
dc.subjectPhysiotherapy Department, Epworth Healthcare, Melbourne, Australia.en_US
dc.titleObservational gait analysis in traumatic brain injury: accuracy of clinical judgment.en_US
dc.typeJournal Articleen_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.gaitpost.2008.11.005en_US
dc.identifier.journaltitleGait Postureen_US
dc.description.pubmedurihttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19109020en_US
dc.description.affiliatesCentre for Health Exercise and Sports Medicine, School of Physiotherapy, The University of Melbourne, Australiaen_US
dc.description.affiliatesSchool of Physiotherapy, The University of Melbourne, Australiaen_US
dc.description.affiliatesSchool of Mechanical Engineering, The University of Melbourne, Australiaen_US
dc.type.studyortrialCohort Studyen_US
dc.type.contenttypeTexten_US
Appears in Collections:Neurosciences
Rehabilitation

Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.


Items in Epworth are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.