About
Scope & Aims
Editorial office
Editorial board
Reviewers
Ethical standards and procedures
Abstracting and indexing
Contact
Articles & Issues
Current issue
Articles in press
Archive
For Authors
General rules
Guide for authors
Templates
Publication charge
For Reviewers
Guide for reviewers
Our reviewers
ORIGINAL PAPER
Test-retest reliability of postural sway on foam and natural rubber pads in healthy adults
1
Department of Physical Therapy, Faculty of Allied Health Sciences, Thammasat University, Pathum Thani, Thailand
Submission date: 2022-06-22
Acceptance date: 2022-12-05
Publication date: 2024-06-21
Corresponding author
Thanawat Kitsuksan
Department of Physical Therapy, Faculty of Allied Health Sciences, Thammasat University (Rangsit Campus) 99 Moo.18 Phahonyothin Road, Khlong Nueng, Khlong Luang, Pathum Thani 12120 Thailand
Department of Physical Therapy, Faculty of Allied Health Sciences, Thammasat University (Rangsit Campus) 99 Moo.18 Phahonyothin Road, Khlong Nueng, Khlong Luang, Pathum Thani 12120 Thailand
Physiother Quart. 2024;32(2):32-38
KEYWORDS
TOPICS
ABSTRACT
Introduction:
Postural control is essential for humans to maintain balance under both static and dynamic conditions. A variety of unstable support surfaces are used to evaluate postural control. Balance foam pads are relatively expensive, whereas natural rubber pads use a natural material with equivalent viscoelastic properties that are inexpensive and widely available. No postural sway and reliable data existed to support the practice of using a natural rubber pad. The purposes of the study were to determine the test-retest reliability of postural sway by using a natural rubber pad and to compare postural sway in healthy adults while using a foam pad, a natural rubber pad and a firm surface.
Methods:
Nineteen healthy participants were measured for centre of pressure (COP) velocity and displacement during a quiet stance, with their eyes closed, on a balance foam pad (blue foam – Airex®), a natural rubber pad and a firm surface on a force platform. Two repeated sessions were conducted three days apart. Intraclass correlation coefficients were used to determine the test-retest reliability. A one-way repeated measures ANOVA was used to compare the three surface conditions.
Results:
The natural rubber pad demonstrated moderate to good reliability for COP velocity and COP displacement. Also, there were no significant differences in anteroposterior (AP) and mediolateral (ML) COP velocity and displacement between the balance foam pad and the natural rubber pad.
Conclusions:
Our findings indicate that a natural rubber pad could be employed as a low-cost alternative to the balance foam pad for evaluating the balance of healthy adults.
Postural control is essential for humans to maintain balance under both static and dynamic conditions. A variety of unstable support surfaces are used to evaluate postural control. Balance foam pads are relatively expensive, whereas natural rubber pads use a natural material with equivalent viscoelastic properties that are inexpensive and widely available. No postural sway and reliable data existed to support the practice of using a natural rubber pad. The purposes of the study were to determine the test-retest reliability of postural sway by using a natural rubber pad and to compare postural sway in healthy adults while using a foam pad, a natural rubber pad and a firm surface.
Methods:
Nineteen healthy participants were measured for centre of pressure (COP) velocity and displacement during a quiet stance, with their eyes closed, on a balance foam pad (blue foam – Airex®), a natural rubber pad and a firm surface on a force platform. Two repeated sessions were conducted three days apart. Intraclass correlation coefficients were used to determine the test-retest reliability. A one-way repeated measures ANOVA was used to compare the three surface conditions.
Results:
The natural rubber pad demonstrated moderate to good reliability for COP velocity and COP displacement. Also, there were no significant differences in anteroposterior (AP) and mediolateral (ML) COP velocity and displacement between the balance foam pad and the natural rubber pad.
Conclusions:
Our findings indicate that a natural rubber pad could be employed as a low-cost alternative to the balance foam pad for evaluating the balance of healthy adults.
REFERENCES (29)
1.
St-Pierre F. Analysis of static and/or dynamic posture on force platform (Posurography). St-Denis La Plaine: Department of Medical and Surgical Procedure Assessment, Haute Authorite de Sante; 2007.
2.
Siriphorn A, Camonchant D, Boonyong S. Comparisons of effects of a foam pad, mung bean bag, and plastic bead bag on postural stability disturbance in healthy young adults. J Phys Ther Sci. 2016;28:530–34; doi: 10.1589/jpts.28.530.
3.
Gosselin G, Fagan M. Foam pads properties and their effects on posturography in participants of different weight. Chiropr Man Therap. 2015;23(1):2; doi: 10.1186/s12998-014-0045-4.
4.
Gibson AL, Wagner D, Heyward V. Advanced Fitness Assessment and Exercise Prescription. 8th ed. Champaign: Human Kinetics; 2019.
5.
Lin C-C, Roche JL, Steed DP, Musolino MC, Marchetti GF, Furman GR, Redfern MS, Whitney SL. Test-retest reliability of postural stability on two different foam pads. J Nat Sci. 2015;1(2):1–12.
6.
Patel M, Fransson PA, Lush D, Gomez S. The effect of foam surface properties on postural stability assessment while standing. Gait Posture. 2008;28(4):649–56; doi: 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2008.04.018.
7.
Chaikeeree N, Saengsirisuwan V, Chinsongkram B, Boonsinsukh R. Interaction of age and foam types used in Clinical Test for Sensory Interaction and Balance (CTSIB). Gait Posture. 2015;41(1):313–15; doi: 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2014.09.011.
8.
Hong SK, Park JH, Kwon SY, Kim JS, Koo JW. Clinical efficacy of the Romberg test using a foam pad to identify balance problems: a comparative study with the sensory organization test. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2015;272(10):2741–47; doi: 10.1007/s00405-014-3273-2.
9.
Bell DR, Guskiewicz KM, Clark MA, Padua DA. Systematic review of the balance error scoring system. Sports Health. 2011;3(3):287–95; doi: 10.1177/1941738111403122.
10.
Cohen H, Blatchly CA, Gombash LL. A study of the clinical test of sensory interaction and balance. Physical therapy. 1993;73(6):346–351; discussion 51–54.
11.
Backlund WH, Norrsell U, Gothner K, Olausson H. Tactile directional sensitivity and postural control. Exp Brain Res. 2005;166(2):147–56; doi: 10.1007/s00221-005-2343-5.
12.
Donath L, Roth R, Zahner L, Faude O. Testing single and double limb standing balance performance: Comparison of COP path length evaluation between two devices. Gait Posture. 2012;36:439–43; doi: 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2012.04.001.
13.
Liu B, Leng Y, Zhou R, Liu J, Liu D, Liu J, et al. Foam pad of appropriate thickness can improve diagnostic value if foam posturography in detecting postural instability. Acta Otolaryngol. 2018;138(4):351–56; doi: 10.1080/00016489.2017.1393842.
14.
MacLellan MJ, Patla AE. Adaptation of walking pattern on a compliant surface to regulate dynamic stability. Exp Brain Res. 2006;173(3):521–30; doi: 10.1007/s00221-006-0399-5.
15.
Bey ME, Arampatzis A, Legerlotz K. The effect of a maternity support belt on static stability and posture in pregnant and non-pregnant women. J Biomech. 2018;75:123–28; doi: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2018.05.005.
16.
Portney LG, Watkins MP. Foundation of Clinical Research. Application to Practice. 3rd ed. London: Pearson/Prentice Hall; 2009.
17.
Hopkins WG. Measures of reliability in sports medicine and science. Sports Med. 2000;30:1–15.
18.
Weir JP. Quantifying test-retest reliability using the intraclass correlation coefficient and the SEM. J Strength Cond Res. 2005;19(1):231–40; doi: 10.1519/15184.1.
19.
Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 1986;1:307–10.
20.
Patel M, Fransson PA, Johansson R, Magnuson M. Foam posturography: standing on foam is not equivalent to standing with decreased rapidly adapting mechanoreceptive sensation. Exp Brain Res. 2011;208(4):519–27; doi: 10.1007/s00221-010-2498-6.
21.
Grimsby O, Rivard J. Science, Theory and Clinical Application in Orthopaedic Manual Physical Therapy. Scientific Therapeutic Exercise Progressions (STEP). The Back and Lower Extremity. Academy of Graduate Physical Therapy, Incorporated; 2009.
22.
Chaudhry H, Bukiet B, Ji Z, Findley T. Measurement of balance in computer posturography: comparison of methods – a brief review. J Bodyw Mov Ther. 2011;15(1):82–91; doi: 10.1016/j.jbmt.2008.03.003.
23.
Prieto TE, Myklebust JB, Hoffmann RG, Lovett EG, Myklebust BM. Measures of postural steadiness: differences between healthy young and elderly adults. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 1996;43(9):956–66; doi: 10.1109/10.532130.
24.
Hung J-W, Chou C-X, Hsieh Y-W, Wu W-C, Yu M-Y, Chen P-C, Chang H-F, Ding S-E. Randomized comparison trial of balance training by using exergaming and conventional weight-shift therapy in patients with chronic stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2014;95(9):1629–37; doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2014.04.029.
25.
Nardone A, Godi M, Artuso A, Schieppati M. Balance rehabilitation by moving platform and exercises in patients with neuropathy or vestibular deficit. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2010;91(12):1869–77; doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2010.09.011.
26.
Boonsinsukh R, Khumnonchai B, Saengsirisuwan V, Chaikeeree N. The effect of the type of foam pad used in the modified Clinical Test of Sensory Interaction and Balance (mCTSIB) on the accuracy in identifying older adults with fall history. Hong Kong Physiother J. 2020;40(2):133–43; doi: 10.1142/s1013702520500134.
27.
Lee D, Kim H, An H, Jang J, Hong S, Jung S, et al. Comparison of postural sway depending on balance pad type. J Phys Ther Sci. 2018;30(2):252–57; doi: 10.1589/jpts.30.252.
28.
Kalra A. Decoding the Bland–Altman plot: basic review. J Pract Cardiovasc Sci. 2017;3:36–8.
29.
Ho KM. Using linear regression to assess dose-dependent bias on a Bland-Altman plot. J Emerg Crit Care Med. 2018;2:68.
Share
RELATED ARTICLE
| eISSN: | 2544-4395 |
We process personal data collected when visiting the website. The function of obtaining information about users and their behavior is carried out by voluntarily entered information in forms and saving cookies in end devices. Data, including cookies, are used to provide services, improve the user experience and to analyze the traffic in accordance with the Privacy policy. Data are also collected and processed by Google Analytics tool (more).
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
