Cited by 16Hip disorders and treatmentsLower Extremity Biomechanics and PathologiesMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation

Validity and Reliability of Kinovea® for Pelvic Kinematic Measurement in Standing Position and in Sitting Position with 45° of Hip Flexion

Open access
Vicente-Pina, Lucía, Sánchez-Rodríguez, Rocío, Ferrández-Laliena, Loreto, Heredia-Jimenez, Jose, Müller-Thyssen-Uriarte, Julián, Monti-Ballano, Sofía, Hidalgo-García, César, Tricás-Moreno, José Miguel +1 more·2025·Sensors

Abstract

The anatomy of the pelvis may obscure differences in pelvic tilt, potentially underestimating its correlation with clinical measures. Measuring the total sagittal range of pelvic movement can serve as a reliable indicator of pelvic function. This study assessed the inter- and intra-examiner reliability of the Kinovea® version 0.9.5 and its agreement with the Qualisys System (3D motion capture) for measuring the total pelvic range of movement (ROM) in the sagittal plane, establishing Kinovea®’s validity in standing and sitting positions with 45° of hip flexion. A cross-sectional study was conducted with 13 asymptomatic participants. Pelvic kinematics were recorded using both systems. Pelvic posture, anterior and posterior tilt, and total pelvic ROM in the sagittal plane were analyzed. The Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) was used to evaluate reliability and validity. Additionally, the technical error of measurement (TEM), relative TEM, standard error of measurement, and minimal detectable change (MDC) were calculated to establish Kinovea®’s accuracy. Kinovea® demonstrated excellent inter- and intra-examiner reliability for total pelvic ROM in standing and sitting measurements (ICC > 0.90), with relative TEM values below 10% and MDC values between 1.60°and 11.20°. Validity showed good-to-excellent ICC values when comparing Kinovea® and the Qualisys System. This finding suggests that Kinovea® is a valid tool for obtaining reproducible measurements of total pelvic ROM in the sagittal plane in standing and sitting positions, demonstrating excellent-to-good inter- and intra-examiner reliability for pelvic kinematics.

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 · 10.3390/s25010250

Cites

41 of 41 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

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

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?

  • Based on previous Kinovea reliability studies in lower-limb kinematics, with α = 0.05, β = 0.20, a minimum acceptable ICC of 0.70 and an expected ICC of 0.90, 18.4 subjects were required.

    “Assuming values for type I and type II errors of α = 0.05 and β = 0.20, respectively, a minimum acceptable ICC of 0.70 and an expected ICC of 0.90, it was estimated that 18.4 subjects were required.”

    From Intra-Rater and Test–Retest Reliability of Kinovea for the Kinematic Analysis of Squatting in Healthy Active Women (2026) · cites this paper as [31]

    The Sample Size Calculation section (2.6) uses α = 0.05 and power = 0.80, equivalent to β = 0.20. But it reports 13 required subjects, an expected ICC of 0.88, and a null-hypothesis ICC of 0.5—not 18.4 subjects or ICC values of 0.90 and 0.70. (LLM, conf=0.90)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • SEM and MDC for horizontal pelvic alignment from a sagittal plane at P1 (SEM = 1.10°; MDC = 3.05°) were only slightly higher than those reported by Vicente-Pina in bipedal position (SEM = 0.9°; MDC = 2.6°).

    “SEM and MDC values obtained for horizontal pelvic alignment from a sagittal plane at P1 (SEM = 1.10°; MDC = 3.05°) were only slightly higher than those reported by Vicente–Pina [31] in bipedal position (SEM = 0.9°; MDC = 2.6°).”

    From Intra-Rater and Test–Retest Reliability of Kinovea for the Kinematic Analysis of Squatting in Healthy Active Women (2026) · cites this paper as [31]

    The Methods (§2.5 and §2.7; page unavailable) describe sagittal pelvic measurements against a horizontal reference and calculation of SEM and MDC, including for standing measurements. The retrieved Results (§3; page unavailable) discuss standing-position reliability but do not give the attributed SEM of 0.9° or MDC of 2.6°, so those figures cannot be verified from the passages available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Previous Kinovea test-retest studies report ICCs > 0.85.

    “previous Kinovea test–retest studies reporting ICCs > 0.85 [31,32].”
  • Previous literature evaluating sagittal plane kinematics with Kinovea uniformly reports robust reliability coefficients (ICC > 0.80) for hip, knee, and ankle angles, pelvic alignment, lumbar lordosis, and trunk tilt.

    “previous literature evaluating sagittal plane kinematics with Kinovea, which uniformly reports robust reliability coefficients (ICC > 0.80) for hip, knee, and ankle angles [32], pelvic alignment [31], lumbar lordosis [46,47], and trunk tilt [48].”

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Vicente-Pina, L., Sánchez-Rodríguez, R., Ferrández-Laliena, L., Heredia-Jimenez, J., Müller-Thyssen-Uriarte, J., Monti-Ballano, S., Hidalgo-García, C., Tricás-Moreno, J. M., & Lucha-López, M. O.
Affiliations
  • Universidad de Zaragoza (ES)
  • Department of Physical Education and Sports, Faculty of Education, Economy & Technology, University of Granada, 51001 Ceuta, Spain
Corresponding author
Hidalgo-García, César
Venue
Sensors
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2025-01-04
Volume
25
Issue
1
Pages
250
ISSN
1424-8220 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4406103100
Cited by
16
References
41
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 6
FWCI
15.05
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Sensors (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Institutional Repository of the University of Granada (University of Granada) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Zaguan (University of Zaragoza Repository) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
Gobierno de Aragón (Spain) (ORDEN CUS/621/2023)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Hip disorders and treatments
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Lower Extremity Biomechanics and Pathologies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Keywords
Kinovea, pelvic kinematics, pelvic range of motion, sagittal plane, pelvic tilt, hip flexion, sitting posture, standing posture, 3D motion capture, video-based motion analysis, measurement reliability, measurement validity, minimal detectable change
MeSH terms
Sitting Position, Standing Position, Adult, Biomechanical Phenomena, Cross-Sectional Studies, Female, Hip, Hip Joint, Humans, Male, Movement, Pelvis, Posture, Reproducibility of Results, Range of Motion, Articular, Young Adult

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