Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,144

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The reliability of three-dimensional kinematic gait measurements: A systematic review

Open access
McGinley, Jennifer L., Baker, Richard, Wolfe, Rory, Morris, Meg E.·2009·Gait & Posture

Abstract

BACKGROUND/AIM Three-dimensional kinematic measures of gait are routinely used in clinical gait analysis and provide a key outcome measure for gait research and clinical practice. This systematic review identifies and evaluates current evidence for the inter-session and inter-assessor reliability of three-dimensional kinematic gait analysis (3DGA) data. METHOD A targeted search strategy identified reports that fulfilled the search criteria. The quality of full-text reports were tabulated and evaluated for quality using a customised critical appraisal tool. RESULTS Fifteen full manuscripts and eight abstracts were included. Studies addressed both within-assessor and between-assessor reliability, with most examining healthy adults. Four full-text reports evaluated reliability in people with gait pathologies. The highest reliability indices occurred in the hip and knee in the sagittal plane, with lowest errors in pelvic rotation and obliquity and hip abduction. Lowest reliability and highest error frequently occurred in the hip and knee transverse plane. Methodological quality varied, with key limitations in sample descriptions and strategies for statistical analysis. Reported reliability indices and error magnitudes varied across gait variables and studies. Most studies providing estimates of data error reported values (S.D. or S.E.) of less than 5 degrees , with the exception of hip and knee rotation. CONCLUSION This review provides evidence that clinically acceptable errors are possible in gait analysis. Variability between studies, however, suggests that they are not always achieved.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2008.09.003

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 4 references

Cited by

See all 1,144

Metadata

Authors
McGinley, J. L., Baker, R., Wolfe, R., & Morris, M. E.
Venue
Gait & Posture
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2009-04
Volume
29
Issue
3
Pages
360-369
ISSN
0966-6362 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2108499234
Cited by
1,144
References
4
FWCI
1.42
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The reliability of three-dimensional kinematic gait measurements: A systematic review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.gaitpost.2008.09.003
The paper
McGinley, J. L., Baker, R., Wolfe, R., & Morris, M. E. (2009). The reliability of three-dimensional kinematic gait measurements: A systematic review. Gait & Posture. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gaitpost.2008.09.003

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.