|
| Forum is a platform and gathering place for news of techniques, applications, exchange of ideas and research notes, questions and answers, comments, abstracts and requests for THE STANDARD - and anything else you, the STANDARD reader, would like it to be.
Just e-mail the editorial team editorial@viconstandard.org and we'll include the most newsworthy and constructive. Let's hear from you. After undertaking some clinical gait experiments with the Vicon system, I have a question. I wonder if someone of the readers on this forum can offer comments. I collected spatio-temporal parameters of several gait tasks in Parkinson's disease patients (straight line walking, turning). The test-protocol was designed to comprise different (2 or 3 trials) from each gait task in a randomized order. The randomization was applied to exclude learning effects or changes due to fatigue. For statistical analysis, an average was calculated of all trials within one gait task. In my opinion averaging gait trials minimizes the variation that exists between trials and increases reliability. That is, as long as there are no systematical difference, e.g. learning effect. On the other hand, the gait parameters can vary between trial 1 and trial 2, and such an averaging procedure may discard important information. Are there any agreements on 'good practice' on this issue? I would really appreciate all replies. Editor's note: Please reply to Anne-Marie.Willems@faber.kuleuven.be
|