Testing single and double limb standing balance performance: Comparison of COP path length evaluation between two devices

Center of pressure (COP) path length evaluation was commonly applied to measure postural sway and usually obtained from gold standard force plates. Thus, we comparatively investigated the feasible and less-expensive GKS® balance system (GKS) with the Kistler® force platform (KIS).34 non-specifically trained but active adults (14 males, 20 females, age: 25.4 ± 4.8 years; weight: 69.3 ± 12.3 kg; height: 1.75 ± 0.09 m, sports activity: 5.8 ± 3.6 hours per week) were randomly tested on both devices during double and single limb stance with opened and closed eyes.Irrespective of the analysed time frame, repeated measures analyses of variances revealed higher path length readings for GKS compared to KIS for 30 s (F = 6.8, p = 0.01) and 10 s (F = 21.2, p = 0.001). Large effect sizes of the COP path length differences between GKS and KIS decreased from easy tasks (double limb, eyes open; d30-s = 2.55, d10-s = 2.04) to the most severe task (single limb, eyes closed; d30-s = 0.02, d10-s = 0.23). According to Bland and Altman, the limits of agreements indicated a high random variability component (between 29%, double limb, eyes open and 67%, single limb, eyes closed). The overall intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) across all four standing balance tasks were moderate for the 30 s- (0.57) as well as the 10 s-analysis (0.65).In conclusion, the COP path length displacements obtained from the GKS balance system seem to differ with a considerable random variability from Kistler force platform data. Thus, measurements of the evaluated devices should not be used interchangeably. Further methodological investigations regarding balance measures seem warranted.

► The GKS System moderately corresponds to the gold standard. ► The amount of COP path length overestimation of the GKS System decreased with task severity. ► COP path length evaluating systems should be carefully interpreted interchangeably.