Accuracy and Reliability of Observational Gait Analysis Data: Judgments of Push-off in Gait After Stroke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Physical therapists routinely observe gait in clinical practice. The purpose of this study was to determine the accuracy and reliability of observational assessments of push-off in gait after stroke. SUBJECTS: Eighteen physical therapists and 11 subjects with hemiplegia following a stroke participated in the study. METHODS: Measurements of ankle power generation were obtained from subjects following stroke using a gait analysis system. Concurrent videotaped gait performances were observed by the physical therapists on 2 occasions. Ankle power generation at push-off was scored as either normal or abnormal using two 11-point rating scales. These observational ratings were correlated with the measurements of peak ankle power generation. RESULTS: A high correlation was obtained between the observational ratings and the measurements of ankle power generation (mean Pearson r=.84). Interobserver reliability was moderately high (mean intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC (2,1)]=.76). Intraobserver reliability also was high, with a mean ICC (2,1) of.89 obtained. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Physical therapists were able to make accurate and reliable judgments of push-off in videotaped gait of subjects following stroke using observational assessment. Further research is indicated to explore the accuracy and reliability of data obtained with observational gait analysis as it occurs in clinical practice.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".