Skip to main content

Table 3 PosturePrint® reliability analysis with a conservative ICC method (ICC2,1). Three examiners evaluated forty student volunteers, with a posture digitizer, twice over 2 days.

From: Three dimensional evaluation of posture in standing with the PosturePrint: an intra- and inter-examiner reliability study

Measure Mean SD* SEM† InterICC‡ 95% C.I. § Intra ICC‡ 95% C.I. MADBO||
Pelvis Rx 3.2° 4.5 2.4° 0.56 0.44–0.68 0.72 0.59 – 0.82 3.3° ± 2.6
Thorax Rx -3.1° 3.1 1.5° 0.65 0.53–0.76 0.76 0.64 – 0.86 2.3° ± 1.7
Head Rx -1.2° 5.7 2.7° 0.69 0.58–0.79 0.77 0.66 – 0.86 3.5° ± 2.7
Pelvis Ry -0.3° 1.1 0.9° N/A¶ N/A N/A N/A 0.6° ± 1.2
Thorax Ry 0.2° 1.3 1.2° N/A N/A N/A N/A 1.0° ± 1.4
Head Ry -0.1° 1.8 1.2° N/A N/A N/A N/A 1.6° ± 1.3
Pelvis Rz -0.3° 1.5 1.3° N/A N/A N/A N/A 1.5° ± 1.3
Thorax Rz 0.3° 1.4 0.7° 0.66 0.55–0.77 0.76 0.66–0.85 1.0° ± 0.8
Head Rz 1.1° 2.3 1.2° 0.66 0.55–0.77 0.75 0.64–0.84 1.9° ± 1.3
Pelvis Tx -3.6 mm 7.1 4.3 mm 0.51 0.39 – 0.64 0.64 0.51 – 0.76 6.0 mm ± 4.3
Thorax Tx 2.0 mm 6.5 2.6 mm 0.72 0.62 – 0.82 0.84 0.74 – 0.90 4.2 mm ± 3.2
Head Tx -0.6 mm 6.0 3.4 mm 0.54 0.42 – 0.67 0.67 0.54 – 0.78 5.2 mm ± 3.9
Pelvis Tz 54.4 mm 17.0 5.9 mm 0.80 0.71 – 0.87 0.88 0.81 – 0.93 8.4 mm ± 6.3
Thorax Tz 3.6 mm 9.8 5.5 mm 0.54 0.41 – 0.68 0.68 0.52 – 0.81 8.3 mm ± 6.0
Head Tz 30.1 mm 9.1 4.6 mm 0.64 0.52 – 0.75 0.75 0.64 – 0.84 6.0 mm ± 4.6
  1. * SD = Standard deviation
  2. † SEM = Standard error of measurement = SD 1 ICC MathType@MTEF@5@5@+=feaafiart1ev1aaatCvAUfKttLearuWrP9MDH5MBPbIqV92AaeXatLxBI9gBaebbnrfifHhDYfgasaacH8akY=wiFfYdH8Gipec8Eeeu0xXdbba9frFj0=OqFfea0dXdd9vqai=hGuQ8kuc9pgc9s8qqaq=dirpe0xb9q8qiLsFr0=vr0=vr0dc8meaabaqaciaacaGaaeqabaqabeGadaaakeaacqqGtbWucqqGebarcqGHflY1daGcaaqaaiabigdaXiabgkHiTiabbMeajjabboeadjabboeadbWcbeaaaaa@365D@ .
  3. ‡ ICC = Cross factor intra- or inter-examiner correlation coefficient
  4. § 95% C.I. = 95 percent confidence interval
  5. || MADBO = Mean absolute differences between observers' measurements
  6. ¶ N/A = Not applicable, means the assumption of a normal distribution was violated by many identical values, and thus ICCs are not appropriate for this data.