Table 5.
Subgroup 1 (n = 11) VPIT test performance without support | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
VPIT parameters | Test Mean ± SD | Retest Mean ± SD | Test-Retest Mean difference ± SD | Kendall’s tau correlation | Kendall’s tau correlation with transformed data | ICC (95 % CI) | SEM agreement | SDD | SDD% |
Tex [s] | 113.14 ± 64.54 | 83.56 ± 27.26 | 29.57 ± 61.17 | .19a | 0.31c | 0.35 (−0.90–0.81) | 37.01 | 102.50 | 682.87 |
Ndp | 0.12 ± 0.23 | 0.12 ± 0.23 | 0.0 ± 0.34 | 0.0 | - | 0.25 (−6.04–0.69) | 0.20 | 0.55 | 3.66 |
Fg go [N] | 10.49 ± 4.84 | 10.13 ± 4.09 | 0.36 ± 3.4 | 0.20a | 0.24c | 0.84 (0.40–0.96) | 1.79 | 4.95 | 32.97 |
Fg return [N] | 1.74 ± 0.92 | 1.55 ± 1.22 | 0.19 ± 0.93 | 0.13a | 0.13d | 0.78 (0.18–0.94) | 0.50 | 1.39 | 9.26 |
Nzc [1/s] go | 11.18 ± 1.79 | 10.79 ± 1.97 | 0.39 ± 1.21 | 0.06 | - | 0.89 (0.60–0.97) | 0.62 | 1.73 | 11.53 |
Nzc [1/s] return | 11.72 ± 1.91 | 10.80 ± 1.83 | 0.92 ± 1.29 | 0.09 | - | 0.82 (0.28–0.95) | 0.79 | 2.20 | 14.66 |
Etraj go [cm] | 0.56 ± 0.27 | 0.47 ± 0.15 | 0.09 ± 0.20 | 0.16a | 0.10b,c | 0.70 (0.00–0.92) | 0.12 | 0.32 | 2.13 |
0.29 ± 0.18c | 0.35 ± 0.15c | 0.06 ± 0.11c | 0.83 (0.38–0.95)c | 0.07c | 0.19c | 1.27c | |||
Etraj return [cm] | 0.79 ± 0.28 | 0.75 ± 0.35 | 0.04 ± 0.42 | 0.06 | - | 0.18 (−2.80–0.80) | 0.29 | 0.79 | 5.26 |
Fcmean [N] | 1.08 ± 0.72 | 1.18 ± 0.66 | −0.10 ± 0.52 | 0.02 | - | 0.84 (0.41–0.96) | 0.28 | 0.77 | 5.13 |
aΤ > 0.1, Ttrans decreasedb, c = log10 transformed, d = square root transformed
T ex [s] execution time in seconds, N dp number of dropped pegs during transport, F g (go/return) [N] mean grasping force of the three force sensors integrated into the handle in Newton, N zc [1/s] (go/return) number of zero-crossings of the acceleration, E traj [cm]: trajectory error, F cmean [N] mean collision force, SD Standard Deviation, ICC Intraclass Correlation Coefficient, CI Confidence Interval, SEM Standard Error of Measurement, SDD Smallest Detectable Difference