High Agreement Between 3D Motion Capture and 2D Video Analysis Systems and Raters for Knee Flexion Range of Motion During A Single Leg Drop Landing Task

Christopher J. Cleary,KathleenMae Rogers,Nicholas Dombrowski,Lisa M. Vopat,Bryan G. Vopat,Ashley A. Herda
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2519/josptopen.2024.0051
2024-09-10
Abstract:OBJECTIVE: To determine the agreement between a 2-dimensional (2D) and 3-dimensional (3D) video capture system and between multiple raters during a single leg drop landing task. DESIGN: Cross-sectional observational study METHODS: Single leg drop landing trials of twenty-three males (n=12) and females (n=11) were recorded using the 2D and 3D systems. Reliability and agreement were quantified through intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC 2, k ), standard error of the measurement (SEM), and Bland-Altman plots. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) assessed systematic error between the 2D raters and 3D system. RESULTS: A one-way ANOVA on 35 drop-landing trials across raters detected a difference across the 3 estimates of knee flexion range of motion (p 3D system (3.30±0.76°, p<0.001), and rater 1 and 2 differed (2.14±0.82°, p=0.04). There was high reliability between the two 2D raters (ICC 2, k =0.89; SEM=3.44°). Rater 1 completed analyses on 87 additional trials (total n=117) and was comparable to the 3D system (0.87±0.47°, p=0.06; ICC 2, k =0.90; SEM=3.52°). CONCLUSION: 2D video analysis can be used in a clinical setting where 3D capture of movement mechanics is not feasible.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?