Validity of PostureScreen Mobile® in the Measurement of Standing Posture

• Main Author: Hopkins, Breanna Cristine Berry
• Format: Others
• Published: BYU ScholarsArchive 2014
• Subjects: posture; Vicon; body alignment; standing posture; PostureScreen Mobile; Exercise Science
• Online Access: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/etd/4119; https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5118&context=etd

Background: PostureScreen Mobile® is an app created to quickly screen posture using front and side-view photographs. There is currently a lack of evidence that establishes PostureScreen Mobile® (PSM) as a valid measure of posture. Therefore, the purpose of this preliminary study was to document the validity and reliability of PostureScreen Mobile® in assessing static standing posture. Methods: This study was an experimental trial in which the posture of 50 male participants was assessed a total of six times using two different methods: PostureScreen Mobile® and Vicon 3D motion analysis system (VIC). Postural deviations, as measured during six trials of PSM assessments (3 trials with and 3 trials without anatomical markers), were compared to the postural deviations as measured using the VIC as the criterion measure. Measurement of lateral displacement on the x-axis (shift) and rotation on the y-axis (tilt) were made of the head, shoulders, and hips in the frontal plane. Measurement of forward/rearward displacement on the Z-axis (shift) of the head, shoulders, hips, and knees were made in the sagittal plane. Validity was evaluated by comparing the PSM measurements of shift and tilt of each body part to that of the VIC. Reliability was evaluated by comparing the variance of PSM measurements to the variance of VIC measurements. The statistical model employed the Bayesian framework and consisted of the scaled product of the likelihood of the data given the parameters and prior probability densities for each of the parameters. Results: PSM tended to overestimate VIC postural tilt and shift measurements in the frontal plane and underestimate VIC postural shift measurements in the sagittal plane. Use of anatomical markers did not universally improve postural measurements with PSM, and in most cases, the variance of postural measurements using PSM exceeded that of VIC. The patterns in the intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) suggest high trial-to-trial variation in posture. Conclusions: We conclude that until research further establishes the validity and reliability of the PSM app, it should not be used in research or clinical applications when accurate postural assessments are necessary or when serial measurements of posture will be performed. We suggest that the PSM be used by health and fitness professionals as a screening tool, as described by the manufacturer. Due to the suspected trial-to-trial variation in posture, we question the usefulness of a single postural assessment.