Validity and reliability of the mobile virtual reality subjective visual vertical measurement system: Comparison with conventional bucket test.

IF 3.3 3区 医学 Q2 NEUROSCIENCES
Hirofumi Ogihara, Tomohiko Kamo, Akiko Umibe, Yasuyuki Kurasawa, Shota Hayashi, Tatsuaki Kuroda, Ryozo Tanaka, Masato Azami, Takumi Kato, Masao Noda, Reiko Tsunoda, Hiroaki Fushiki
{"title":"Validity and reliability of the mobile virtual reality subjective visual vertical measurement system: Comparison with conventional bucket test.","authors":"Hirofumi Ogihara, Tomohiko Kamo, Akiko Umibe, Yasuyuki Kurasawa, Shota Hayashi, Tatsuaki Kuroda, Ryozo Tanaka, Masato Azami, Takumi Kato, Masao Noda, Reiko Tsunoda, Hiroaki Fushiki","doi":"10.1177/09574271251357176","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>BackgroundSubjective visual vertical (SVV) test is a key functional assessment tool that provides insights into vestibular imbalance. Mobile virtual reality SVV measurement system (MVR-SVV) has the potential to facilitate simple, low-cost, and reliable measurements.ObjectiveThis study aimed to verify the reliability and validity of MVR-SVV by comparing its data with the previously established bucket test (bucket-SVV).MethodsThirty-eight healthy adults completed both bucket-SVV and MVR-SVV tests. The reliability and validity of MVR-SVV were examined using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs), Pearson's correlation, Bland-Altman plots (BAP), and minimum detectable change (MDC).ResultsBAP results indicated that the limits of agreement for the SVV angles were 1.61 to -1.24°. No fixed errors were identified (<i>p</i> = 0.13), although a small proportional error was detected (y = -0.59x + 0.157, <i>p</i> < 0.001). Pearson's correlation coefficient between bucket-SVV and MVR-SVV was 0.716 (<i>p</i> < 0.001). Within-day reliability was poor for bucket-SVV, with ICC = 0.33-0.38, but moderate for MVR-SVV, with ICC = 0.70-0.71. Between-day reliability was poor for both methods, with ICC = 0.38 for MVR-SVV and ICC = 0.28 for bucket-SVV. MDC was 1.78° for bucket-SVV and 2.67° for MVR-SVV.ConclusionsOur findings suggest that MVR-SVV can be used for assessing SVV. Its portability, availability, and reliability make it a valuable tool for clinicians in clinical settings.</p>","PeriodicalId":49960,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Vestibular Research-Equilibrium & Orientation","volume":" ","pages":"9574271251357176"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Vestibular Research-Equilibrium & Orientation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/09574271251357176","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"NEUROSCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

BackgroundSubjective visual vertical (SVV) test is a key functional assessment tool that provides insights into vestibular imbalance. Mobile virtual reality SVV measurement system (MVR-SVV) has the potential to facilitate simple, low-cost, and reliable measurements.ObjectiveThis study aimed to verify the reliability and validity of MVR-SVV by comparing its data with the previously established bucket test (bucket-SVV).MethodsThirty-eight healthy adults completed both bucket-SVV and MVR-SVV tests. The reliability and validity of MVR-SVV were examined using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs), Pearson's correlation, Bland-Altman plots (BAP), and minimum detectable change (MDC).ResultsBAP results indicated that the limits of agreement for the SVV angles were 1.61 to -1.24°. No fixed errors were identified (p = 0.13), although a small proportional error was detected (y = -0.59x + 0.157, p < 0.001). Pearson's correlation coefficient between bucket-SVV and MVR-SVV was 0.716 (p < 0.001). Within-day reliability was poor for bucket-SVV, with ICC = 0.33-0.38, but moderate for MVR-SVV, with ICC = 0.70-0.71. Between-day reliability was poor for both methods, with ICC = 0.38 for MVR-SVV and ICC = 0.28 for bucket-SVV. MDC was 1.78° for bucket-SVV and 2.67° for MVR-SVV.ConclusionsOur findings suggest that MVR-SVV can be used for assessing SVV. Its portability, availability, and reliability make it a valuable tool for clinicians in clinical settings.

移动虚拟现实主观视觉垂直测量系统的效度与信度:与传统水桶测试的比较。
主观视觉垂直(SVV)测试是一个重要的功能评估工具,提供了前庭不平衡的见解。移动虚拟现实SVV测量系统(MVR-SVV)具有实现简单、低成本和可靠测量的潜力。目的通过将MVR-SVV测试数据与已有的桶形测试(bucket- svv)进行比较,验证其信度和效度。方法38例健康成人同时完成桶式svv和MVR-SVV检测。采用类内相关系数(ICCs)、Pearson’s相关、Bland-Altman图(BAP)和最小可检测变化(MDC)检验MVR-SVV的信度和效度。结果bap结果显示SVV角度的一致性限为1.61 ~ -1.24°。未发现固定误差(p = 0.13),但检测到小比例误差(y = -0.59x + 0.157, p < 0.001)。桶形svv与MVR-SVV的Pearson相关系数为0.716 (p < 0.001)。bucket-SVV的日内信度较差,ICC = 0.33-0.38,而MVR-SVV的日内信度中等,ICC = 0.70-0.71。两种方法的日间可靠性都很差,MVR-SVV的ICC = 0.38, bucket-SVV的ICC = 0.28。bucket-SVV的MDC为1.78°,MVR-SVV为2.67°。结论MVR-SVV可用于SVV评估。它的便携性、可用性和可靠性使其成为临床医生在临床环境中的一个有价值的工具。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.00
自引率
4.30%
发文量
66
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Vestibular Research is a peer-reviewed journal that publishes experimental and observational studies, review papers, and theoretical papers based on current knowledge of the vestibular system. Subjects of the studies can include experimental animals, normal humans, and humans with vestibular or other related disorders. Study topics can include the following: Anatomy of the vestibular system, including vestibulo-ocular, vestibulo-spinal, and vestibulo-autonomic pathways Balance disorders Neurochemistry and neuropharmacology of balance, both at the systems and single neuron level Neurophysiology of balance, including the vestibular, ocular motor, autonomic, and postural control systems Psychophysics of spatial orientation Space and motion sickness Vestibular rehabilitation Vestibular-related human performance in various environments
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信