Inertial Measurement Units for Clinical Movement Analysis: Reliability and Concurrent Validity
Open accessAbstract
The aim of this study was to investigate the reliability and concurrent validity of a commercially available Xsens MVN BIOMECH inertial-sensor-based motion capture system during clinically relevant functional activities. A clinician with no prior experience of motion capture technologies and an experienced clinical movement scientist each assessed 26 healthy participants within each of two sessions using a camera-based motion capture system and the MVN BIOMECH system. Participants performed overground walking, squatting, and jumping. Sessions were separated by 4 ± 3 days. Reliability was evaluated using intraclass correlation coefficient and standard error of measurement, and validity was evaluated using the coefficient of multiple correlation and the linear fit method. Day-to-day reliability was generally fair-to-excellent in all three planes for hip, knee, and ankle joint angles in all three tasks. Within-day (between-rater) reliability was fair-to-excellent in all three planes during walking and squatting, and poor-to-high during jumping. Validity was excellent in the sagittal plane for hip, knee, and ankle joint angles in all three tasks and acceptable in frontal and transverse planes in squat and jump activity across joints. Our results suggest that the MVN BIOMECH system can be used by a clinician to quantify lower-limb joint angles in clinically relevant movements.
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
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.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Knee intra-rater reliability was fair to excellent and inter-rater reliability varied across movements (good for walking ICC 0.4 to 0.74 and poor for jumping ICC ≤0.39).
“Intra-rater reliability was fair to excellent and inter-rater reliability varied across movements performed (good for walking [ICC from 0.4 to 0.74] and poor for jumping [ICC ≤ 0.39] [45,53,59]).”
From Validity and Reliability of Wearable Sensors for Joint Angle Estimation: A Systematic Review (2019) · cites this paper as [53]
Hip intra-rater reliability is fair to excellent and inter-rater reliability varied across movements (good for walking ICC 0.4 to 0.74 and poor for jumping ICC ≤0.39).
“Intra-rater reliability is fair to excellent and inter-rater reliability varied across movements performed (good for walking [ICC of 0.4 to 0.74] and poor for jumping [ICC ≤ 0.39] [46,53,66]).”
From Validity and Reliability of Wearable Sensors for Joint Angle Estimation: A Systematic Review (2019) · cites this paper as [53]
Ankle intra- and inter-rater reliability varied across movement complexity (better for walking ICC 0.6 to 0.95 than jumping ICC 0.39 to 0.99 or playing soccer ICC 0.28 to 0.79).
“Intra- and inter-rater reliability varied across movements complexity (better for walking [ICC of 0.6 to 0.95] than jumping [ICC of 0.39 to 0.99] or playing soccer [ICC of 0.28 to 0.79] [29,53,62]).”
From Validity and Reliability of Wearable Sensors for Joint Angle Estimation: A Systematic Review (2019) · cites this paper as [53]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 54 · Cited by 318
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- [51]Kirtley C. Sensitivity of the modified helen hayes model to marker placement errors Proceedings of the Seventh International Symposium on the 3-D Analysis of Human Movement Newcastle, UK 10–12 July 2002
- [55]Baker R. Measuring Walking: A Handbook of Clinical Gait Analysis Mac Keith Press London, UK 2013 9780874216561
- Authors
- Al-Amri, M., Nicholas, K., Button, K., Sparkes, V., Sheeran, L., & Davies, J.
- Affiliations
- Arthritis Research UK (GB)
- Cardiff and Vale University Health Board (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Al-Amri, Mohammad
- Venue
- Sensors
- Publisher
- MDPI AG
- Published
- 2018-02-28
- Volume
- 18
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 719
- ISSN
- 1424-8220 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC5876797
- OpenAlex
- W2791278755
- Cited by
- 318
- References
- 54
- Citations by year
- 2026: 39 · 2025: 38 · 2024: 31 · 2023: 37 · 2022: 49 · 2021: 37 · 2020: 52 · 2019: 30 · 2018: 5
- FWCI
- 12.38
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Sensors (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- ORCA Online Research @Cardiff (Cardiff University) (acceptedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Funders
- Versus Arthritis (18461)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Lower Extremity Biomechanics and Pathologies
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Reliability and Agreement in Measurement
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Control and Systems Engineering › Human Motion and Animation
- Keywords
- inertial measurement unit, concurrent validity, lower limb joint angles, overground walking, squatting, jumping, day-to-day reliability
- MeSH terms
- Ankle Joint, Biomechanical Phenomena, Gait, Humans, Knee Joint, Movement, Reproducibility of Results, Range of Motion, Articular
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
