Related Experiment Video
Updated: Dec 30, 2025
Clinical-oriented Three-dimensional Gait Analysis Method for Evaluating Gait Disorder
Published on: March 4, 2018
Teleassessment of Gait and Gait Aids: Validity and Interrater Reliability
Kavita Venkataraman1, Kristopher Amis2, Lawrence R Landerman3
1Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health, National University of Singapore and National University Health System, Singapore.
Background:
Gait and mobility aid assessments are important components of rehabilitation. Given the increasing use of telehealth to meet rehabilitation needs, it is important to examine the feasibility of such assessments within the constraints of telerehabilitation.
Objective:
The objective of this study was to examine the reliability and validity of the Tinetti Performance-Oriented Mobility Assessment gait scale (POMA-G) and cane height assessment under various video and transmission settings to demonstrate the feasibility of teleassessment.
Design:
This repeated-measures study compared the test performances of in-person, slow motion (SM) review, and normal-speed (NS) video ratings at various fixed frame rates (8, 15, and 30 frames per second) and bandwidth (128, 384, and 768 kB/s) configurations.
Methods:
Overall bias, validity, and interrater reliability were assessed for in-person, SM video, and NS video ratings, with SM video rating as the gold standard, as well as for different frame rate and bandwidth configurations within NS videos.
Results:
There was moderate to good interrater reliability for the POMA-G (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] = 0.66-0.77 across all configurations) and moderate validity for in-person (β = 0.62; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.37-0.87) and NS video (β = 0.74; 95% CI = 0.67-0.80) ratings compared with the SM video rating. For cane height, interrater reliability was good (ICC = 0.66-0.77), although it was significantly lower at the lowest frame rate (8 frames per second) (ICC = 0.66; 95% CI = 0.54-0.76) and bandwidth (128 kB/s) (ICC = 0.69; 95% CI = 0.57-0.78) configurations. Validity for cane height was good for both in-person (β = 0.80; 95% CI = 0.62-0.98) and NS video (β = 0.86; 95% CI = 0.81-0.90) ratings compared with SM video rating.
Limitations:
Some lower frame rate and bandwidth configurations may limit the reliability of remote cane height assessments.
Conclusions:
Teleassessment for POMA-G and cane height using typically available internet and video quality is feasible, valid, and reliable.
