The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Test–retest reliability of centre of foot pressure measures to assess postural control during unperturbed stance
Abstract
Centre of foot pressure (CoP) measures, computed from a force platform, are commonly used to assess individual's postural control during unperturbed stance. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the effect of the number of trial recordings on the test-retest reliability of CoP measures and to determine the optimum number of trial recordings required to maximise their test-retest reliability. Ten young healthy adults were asked to stand upright, eyes closed, as still as possible on a force platform allowing measuring the CoP displacements. Two sessions of ten 30s trials were performed with 1h rest in between. Intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) with 95% confidence interval and Bland and Altman analysis were used as statistical method for assessing test-retest reliability of CoP measures. These analyses were conducted on both (1) non-normalized CoP measures and (2) CoP measures normalized relative to the subjects' anthropometric properties (height, weight and body mass index). Results show that ICCs generally increase as the number of trials used to compute CoP measures increases. Interestingly, three 30s trial recordings are sufficient to ensure excellent test-retest reliability of 12 CoP measures widely employed in clinical practice, namely two-dimensional CoP parameters (surface area, range, mean and maximal velocities of the CoP displacements) and one-dimensional mediolateral and anteroposterior CoP parameters (variance, range, mean and maximal velocities). The present findings could have implications in clinical and rehabilitative areas.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
STATISTICAL METHODS FOR ASSESSING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO METHODS OF CLINICAL MEASUREMENT
Martin Bland, J., & Altman, D. (1986) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(86)90837-8 · Cited by 47,965
Forming inferences about some intraclass correlation coefficients.
McGraw, K. O., & Wong, S. P. (1996) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/1082-989x.1.1.30 · Cited by 6,903
Geurts, A. C. H., Nienhuis, B., & Mulder, T. W. (1993) · Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation · doi:10.1016/s0003-9993(23)00004-7 · Cited by 295
Cited by
Clinical stabilometry standardization
Scoppa, F., Capra, R., Gallamini, M., & Shiffer, R. (2013) · Gait & Posture · doi:10.1016/j.gaitpost.2012.07.009 · Cited by 329
Barry, G., van Schaik, P., MacSween, A., Dixon, J., & Martin, D. (2016) · BMC Sports Science, Medicine and Rehabilitation · doi:10.1186/s13102-016-0050-0 · Cited by 61
Individual characteristics of reliable lumbar coupling motions
Yun, W.-S., Kim, H., Ahn, J. H., Park, Y.-B., & Park, Y.-J. (2015) · European Spine Journal · doi:10.1007/s00586-015-4081-0 · Cited by 16
Metadata
- Authors
- Pinsault, N., & Vuillerme, N.
- Venue
- Medical Engineering & Physics
- Publisher
- IOP Publishing
- Published
- 2008-10-04
- Volume
- 31
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 276-286
- ISSN
- 1350-4533 (ISSN-L)
- 1873-4030
- OpenAlex
- W2035588733
- Cited by
- 234
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 23.37
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: Test–retest reliability of centre of foot pressure measures to assess postural control during unperturbed stance. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.medengphy.2008.08.003
- The paper
- Pinsault, N., & Vuillerme, N. (2009). Test–retest reliability of centre of foot pressure measures to assess postural control during unperturbed stance. Medical Engineering & Physics. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.medengphy.2008.08.003
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.