Table 2.
Results on the concurrent validity of the electronic contact mat as compared to the force plate and the OptoGait® light-barrier system.
| Characteristic | Contact Mat vs. Force Plate | Contact Mat vs. OptoGait® | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ICC (95% CI) |
Bias (ms) |
LoA (ms) |
Inter-Cept | Slope | ICC (95% CI) |
Bias (ms) |
LoA (ms) |
Inter-Cept | Slope | |
| Drop height: 24 cm | ||||||||||
| two-legged | 0.98 (0.97–0.99) |
3.1 | −7.2 ± 13.4 | −0.007 (0.104) |
1.052 (<0.01) |
0.95 (0.93–0.97) |
31.4 | 13.1 ± 49.8 | 0.020 (0.006) |
1.062 (<0.01) |
| one-legged, left | 0.96 (0.94–0.97) |
−0.1 | −19.7 ± 19.5 | 0.013 (0.087) |
0.947 (<0.01) |
0.95 (0.93–0.97) |
41.7 | 22.6 ± 60.8 | 0.033 (<0.01) |
1.034 (<0.01) |
| one-legged, right | 0.95 (0.93–0.97) |
−0.6 | −17.7 ± 16.5 | −0.002 (0.809) |
1.009 (<0.01) |
0.97 (0.95–0.98) |
39.2 | 24.4 ± 54.1 | 0.013 (0.047) |
1.107 (<0.01) |
| Drop height: 43 cm | ||||||||||
| two-legged | 0.99 (0.98–0.99) |
−0.4 | −10.7 ± 10.0 | −0.006 (0.137) |
1.027 (<0.01) |
0.98 (0.97–0.99) |
31.4 | 19.2 ± 43.7 | 0.012 (0.003) |
1.100 (<0.01) |
| Drop height: 62 cm | ||||||||||
| two-legged | 0.99 (0.98–0.99) |
−0.4 | −10.3 ± 9.5 | −0.004 (0.343) |
1.016 (<0.01) |
0.98 (0.96–0.99) |
32.6 | 18.8 ± 46.4 | 0.017 (0.002) |
1.072 (<0.01) |
CI is confidence interval; ICC2.1 is intra-class correlation coefficient; LoA is limits of agreement.