平衡评估的传统方法综述

Nuria Hanim, Yvonne Yee Woon Khor, K. X. Khor, M. N. Abdullah, C. F. Yeong, E. Su
{"title":"平衡评估的传统方法综述","authors":"Nuria Hanim, Yvonne Yee Woon Khor, K. X. Khor, M. N. Abdullah, C. F. Yeong, E. Su","doi":"10.11113/humentech.v2n2.56","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Balancing plays a crucial role in our day-to-day activities and sports performance. However, the evaluation of this skill lacks standardized approaches, resulting in a wide range of practices. This article presents an introduction and critique to some conventional assessment tests used to evaluate balance skills and examines the principles, advantages, and limitations associated with these conventional tools. The conventional balance assessment reviewed in this paper included 10 conventional tests such as Berg Balance Scale, Tinetti Balance Test, Romberg Test, among others, and 2 slightly newer approach, which are the Balance Evaluation Systems Test (BESTest) and the Limits of Stability (LOS) test. The aim of the article was to introduce the available conventional balance assessment methods and highlights the importance of enhancing the conventional method with more precise, individualized approach through incorporation of sensor-based measurements. Suggestions to reduce dependency on manual observation and for more individualized training feedbacks, promoting optimal outcomes in balance training and rehabilitation are also presented.","PeriodicalId":168265,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Human Centered Technology","volume":"57 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Review on Conventional Approaches to Balance Assessment\",\"authors\":\"Nuria Hanim, Yvonne Yee Woon Khor, K. X. Khor, M. N. Abdullah, C. F. Yeong, E. Su\",\"doi\":\"10.11113/humentech.v2n2.56\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Balancing plays a crucial role in our day-to-day activities and sports performance. However, the evaluation of this skill lacks standardized approaches, resulting in a wide range of practices. This article presents an introduction and critique to some conventional assessment tests used to evaluate balance skills and examines the principles, advantages, and limitations associated with these conventional tools. The conventional balance assessment reviewed in this paper included 10 conventional tests such as Berg Balance Scale, Tinetti Balance Test, Romberg Test, among others, and 2 slightly newer approach, which are the Balance Evaluation Systems Test (BESTest) and the Limits of Stability (LOS) test. The aim of the article was to introduce the available conventional balance assessment methods and highlights the importance of enhancing the conventional method with more precise, individualized approach through incorporation of sensor-based measurements. Suggestions to reduce dependency on manual observation and for more individualized training feedbacks, promoting optimal outcomes in balance training and rehabilitation are also presented.\",\"PeriodicalId\":168265,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Human Centered Technology\",\"volume\":\"57 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-08-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Human Centered Technology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.11113/humentech.v2n2.56\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Human Centered Technology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.11113/humentech.v2n2.56","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

平衡在我们的日常活动和运动表现中起着至关重要的作用。然而,这种技能的评估缺乏标准化的方法,导致了广泛的实践。本文介绍和批评了一些用于评估平衡技能的传统评估测试,并检查了与这些传统工具相关的原则、优点和局限性。本文综述了传统的平衡评估方法,包括Berg平衡量表、Tinetti平衡测试、Romberg测试等10种传统的平衡评估方法,以及2种较新的平衡评估系统测试(BESTest)和稳定性极限测试(LOS)。本文的目的是介绍现有的传统平衡评估方法,并强调通过结合基于传感器的测量,以更精确、个性化的方法增强传统方法的重要性。建议减少对人工观察的依赖,增加个性化的训练反馈,促进平衡训练和康复的最佳效果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Review on Conventional Approaches to Balance Assessment
Balancing plays a crucial role in our day-to-day activities and sports performance. However, the evaluation of this skill lacks standardized approaches, resulting in a wide range of practices. This article presents an introduction and critique to some conventional assessment tests used to evaluate balance skills and examines the principles, advantages, and limitations associated with these conventional tools. The conventional balance assessment reviewed in this paper included 10 conventional tests such as Berg Balance Scale, Tinetti Balance Test, Romberg Test, among others, and 2 slightly newer approach, which are the Balance Evaluation Systems Test (BESTest) and the Limits of Stability (LOS) test. The aim of the article was to introduce the available conventional balance assessment methods and highlights the importance of enhancing the conventional method with more precise, individualized approach through incorporation of sensor-based measurements. Suggestions to reduce dependency on manual observation and for more individualized training feedbacks, promoting optimal outcomes in balance training and rehabilitation are also presented.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信