The Protocol for Active Movement Extent Discrimination Assessment (AMEDA) is Reliable When Shortened From 50 to 25 Stimuli to Reduce Testing Fatigue

Active movement extent discrimination assessment (AMEDA) is a psychophysical task that evaluates proprioception and tactile acuity of the lower limbs, and it is a method of determining sensorimotor ability. Sensorimotor ability is the ability to judge small differences in movement tasks through the process of receiving sensory messages (sensory input) and producing a response (motor output). Participant attention lapses in prior psychophysical studies have been implicated as a cause for increased measurement variance thresholds in these types of assessments. Since minimizing the time needed for the AMEDA may help to reduce attention lapses, we compared the reliability of the 50-repetition AMEDA protocol (Group 1) with that of a 25-repetition protocol (Group 2). We assessed the split half reliability of these two approaches, using the Spearman-Brown Adjusted Pearson correlation (r). For each method, we calculated Bland-Altman Plots and Intra Class Correlation Coefficients to compare the reliability of the two data sets and determine the 95% confidence intervals. Split-half test re-test Spearman-Brown Adjusted Pearson r (r<sub>full</sub>) was Group 1 <i>r</i><sub><i>full</i></sub> = 0.83 and Group 2 <i>r</i><sub><i>full</i></sub> = 0.85. The Bland-Altman Plots indicated only a small degree of bias from the zero-difference line, with 95% of the difference points lying within the limits of agreement. For Group 1, the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) two-way, agreement was 0.83 (95% CI 0.54-0.93) and for Group 2, the ICC, two-way, agreement, was 0.85 (95% CI 0.66-0.93). The MDC90 for Group 1 was 0.082 AUC units and for Group 2, it was 0.086 AUC units. The combined data for Group 1 plus Group 2 Bland-Altman Plot indicated only a small degree of bias from the zero-difference line, with 95% of the difference points lying within the limits of agreement. The MDC90 for the combined groups was 0.08 AUC units. The multiple methods from previous research assessing test re-test reliability that we applied to our two data sets indicate that the 25-response AMEDA was a reliable system for evaluating sensorimotor function in the lower limbs and may be an alternative for the more traditional 50-response protocol in which lapses in participant attention from fatigue or other biases may be a concern. There are also practical advantages in time restricted athletic screenings to a shorter administration of this assessment.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Perceptual and Motor Skills
Published
2024-11-27
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1177/00315125241304169
Citations
4
Primary Topic
Balance, Gait, and Falls Prevention
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
4.58
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

The Protocol for Active Movement Extent Discrimination Assessment (AMEDA) is Reliable When Shortened From 50 to 25 Stimuli to Reduce Testing Fatigue

Gordon Stuart Waddington, Jeremy Witchalls
4 citations
Perceptual and Motor Skills
Balance, Gait, and Falls Prevention
4.58
article

The Protocol for Active Movement Extent Discrimination Assessment (AMEDA) is Reliable When Shortened From 50 to 25 Stimuli to Reduce Testing Fatigue

Gordon Stuart Waddington, Jeremy Witchalls
article en
4 citations

Abstract

Active movement extent discrimination assessment (AMEDA) is a psychophysical task that evaluates proprioception and tactile acuity of the lower limbs, and it is a method of determining sensorimotor ability. Sensorimotor ability is the ability to judge small differences in movement tasks through the process of receiving sensory messages (sensory input) and producing a response (motor output). Participant attention lapses in prior psychophysical studies have been implicated as a cause for increased measurement variance thresholds in these types of assessments. Since minimizing the time needed for the AMEDA may help to reduce attention lapses, we compared the reliability of the 50-repetition AMEDA protocol (Group 1) with that of a 25-repetition protocol (Group 2). We assessed the split half reliability of these two approaches, using the Spearman-Brown Adjusted Pearson correlation (r). For each method, we calculated Bland-Altman Plots and Intra Class Correlation Coefficients to compare the reliability of the two data sets and determine the 95% confidence intervals. Split-half test re-test Spearman-Brown Adjusted Pearson r (r<sub>full</sub>) was Group 1 <i>r</i><sub><i>full</i></sub> = 0.83 and Group 2 <i>r</i><sub><i>full</i></sub> = 0.85. The Bland-Altman Plots indicated only a small degree of bias from the zero-difference line, with 95% of the difference points lying within the limits of agreement. For Group 1, the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) two-way, agreement was 0.83 (95% CI 0.54-0.93) and for Group 2, the ICC, two-way, agreement, was 0.85 (95% CI 0.66-0.93). The MDC90 for Group 1 was 0.082 AUC units and for Group 2, it was 0.086 AUC units. The combined data for Group 1 plus Group 2 Bland-Altman Plot indicated only a small degree of bias from the zero-difference line, with 95% of the difference points lying within the limits of agreement. The MDC90 for the combined groups was 0.08 AUC units. The multiple methods from previous research assessing test re-test reliability that we applied to our two data sets indicate that the 25-response AMEDA was a reliable system for evaluating sensorimotor function in the lower limbs and may be an alternative for the more traditional 50-response protocol in which lapses in participant attention from fatigue or other biases may be a concern. There are also practical advantages in time restricted athletic screenings to a shorter administration of this assessment.

Perceptual and Motor SkillsVol. 132(3)
University of Canberra (AU)
Reduced inequalities, Peace, Justice and strong institutions
Openalex Percentile: Top 5%
Balance, Gait, and Falls Prevention
4.58
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.