1998•Medicine & Science in Sports & ExerciseRequires access
MEASUREMENT OF TEMPORAL PARAMETERS OF GAIT: COMPARISON OF A STOPWATCH AND A FRAME COUNTING TECHNIQUE
T. Hussein, Maureen J. Simmonds, Bruce Etnyre, E. J. Protas
Open publisher page 0 citations
Abstract
1686 The purpose of this study was to compare two methods of measuring temporal parameters of gait in subjects with and without low back pain. A total of ten subjects with low back pain and 12 normal subjects participated in this study. Each subject was videotaped while walking twice at two speed conditions(preferred and fastest) over a 6-meter walkway. A stopwatch and frame counting technique were used to measure the gait parameters from the videotapes. The parameters measured in seconds were; stance phase, swing phase, single leg support, and double leg support. All stopwatch measures underestimated double leg support time. In the patient group, the mean and SD of stopwatch measures was 0.12 ± 0.02 and 0.08 ± 0.01 for preferred and fastest speed respectively. This compared to a mean and SD of 0.15 ± 0.02 and 0.10± 0.03 measured with counting frames technique. In the normal group the mean and SD of stopwatch measures was 0.12 ± 0.02 and 0.08 ± 0.01 for preferred and fastest speed respectively. This compared to the mean and SD of 0.15 ± 0.02 and 0.11 ± 0.01 with frame counting technique. In contrast, stopwatch measures overestimated the swing time. In the patient group, the mean and SD of stopwatch measures was 0.42 ± 0.04 and 0.39 ± 0.03 for preferred and fastest speed respectively. This compared to the mean and SD of 0.32 ± 0.02 and 0.38 ± 0.03 measured with frame counting technique. In the normal group the mean and SD of stopwatch measures was 0.45 ± 0.02 and 0.39 ± 0.03 for preferred and fastest speed respectively. This compared to the mean and SD of 0.38± 0.02 and 0.34 ± 0.02 measured with frame counting technique. Paired t-tests revealed a significant difference between methods on all parameters in each group and in each speed condition ( P values < 0.01). Comparison of the two clinical techniques showed systematic differences. Frame counting technique is simple, and easy to use, therefore has potential for greater clinical utility.