目的本研究旨在检验HUMAC平衡系统（HBS）和Balance Trainer BTG4（BTG）与用于姿势控制（PC）和垂直跳跃性能的实验室级推力平台（FP）的同时有效性（ VJP）评估。此外，还针对PC测量了这三个设备的可靠性。方法招募了总共22名参与者（年龄= 37.8±13.3岁；性别= 9男性，13女性；身高= 174.1±10.5 cm；体重= 75.3±17.6 kg）。在两种不同的情况下，双眼和双眼站立或睁开，并进行反跳动作（CMJ），进行双腿和单腿站立平衡测试。使用类内相关系数（ICC），Bland-Altman图（BAP），标准测量误差（SEM）和最小可检测变化（MDC）。结果COP路径长度重测可靠性在所有这三种器件中均占优（ICC = 0.80-0.95）。所有平板的SEM和MDC值均很高（SEM％= 8.0-15.2； MDC％= 22.8-44.5），在四个试验中的三个试验中，HBS MDC值均高于KIS和BTG。并发有效性的ICC评分对BTG的好坏为（ICC = 0.76-0.93），对HBS的评分为中至好（0.49-0.83）。Band-Altman图显示，在所有条件下，四分之二的试验中，HBS均朝较高的COP路径长度值产生系统性偏向，而BTG则朝较低的值偏向系统性偏见。VJP的有效性对于BTG（ICC = 1.0）极好，而对于HBS（0.34）则很差，并且系统地偏向于较低的值。结论PC和VJP的对比分析表明，与实验室级测力板相比，BTG的结果可靠且有效。HBS在PC评估中显示出可靠的结果，但其有效性受到限制。VJP的结果表明，HBS在需要快速，高强度动作（例如跳跃和奔跑）的活动评估中显示出缺陷。由于这三种设备的结果均不相同，因此建议不要互换使用。
OBJECTIVES
The aim of this study was to examine the concurrent validity of the HUMAC Balance System (HBS) and Balance Trainer BTG4 (BTG) in comparison to a laboratory-grade force platform (FP) for postural control (PC) and vertical jump performance (VJP) assessment. In addition, reliability of the three devices was measured for PC.
METHODS
Overall 22 participants (age = 37.8 ± 13.3 years; gender = 9 male, 13 female; height = 174.1 ± 10.5 cm; body mass = 75.3 ± 17.6 kg) were recruited to participate. Double and single leg standing balance tests with eyes open or closed and counter movement jumps (CMJ) were performed on two separate occasions. Reliability and concurrent validity for COP parameters and VJP were examined using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC), Bland-Altman plots (BAP), standard error of measurement (SEM) and minimum detectable change (MDC).
RESULTS
COP path length test-retest reliability was predominantly good to excellent for all three devices (ICC = 0.80-0.95). SEM and MDC values were high for all plates (SEM% = 8.0-15.2; MDC% = 22.8-44.5), with the HBS MDC values higher than the KIS and BTG in three of the four trials. ICC scores for concurrent validity were good to excellent for the BTG (ICC = 0.76-0.93) and moderate to good for the HBS (0.49-0.83). Band-Altman plots revealed a systematic bias for the HBS towards higher COP path length values under all conditions and for the BTG in two out of four trials towards lower values. Validity of VJP was excellent for the BTG (ICC = 1.0) and poor for the HBS (0.34), with a systematic bias towards lower values.
CONCLUSION
The comparative analysis of PC and VJP revealed reliable and valid results for the BTG in comparison to a laboratory-grade force plate. The HBS showed reliable results for PC assessment with restrictions regarding its validity. Results of VJP showed that the HBS revealed deficits in the assessment of activities that require rapid, high force movements such as jumping and running. Due to the variable results of all three devices, it is recommended not to use them interchangeably.
