In previous studies, many evaluation parameters for the center of foot pressure (CFP) in a static standing posture have been proposed, but their reliability and inter-relationships have not been sufficiently examined.
The purposes of this study were to examine trial-to-trial reliability and the inter-relationships of various evaluation parameters and to propose useful ones. Thirty healthy young adults were selected as subjects. The measurement of CFP for 1 minute was carried out 10 times with 1 minute rest for each subject. The measurement device was an Anima's stabilometer G5500. The data was recorded every 20 msec. Seventy-six evaluation parameters, excepting composite parameters from 114 parameters proposed in previous studies, were selected from the following domains: distance, center of pres-sure, distribution of amplitude, area, velocity, power spectrum, and vector for body sway. The intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) for 10 trials were 0.7 or over for all parameters excepting for the X-axis and the Y-axis distribution for body sway, and skewness and kurtosis for body sway speed, but a significant difference between the first trial and the other trials was found in many parameters. Therefore, the ICC was recal-culated by excluding the first trial. As a result, no significant difference was found other than that of the distance of the root of the mean square and the area of the root of the mean square. The ICC was 0.7 or over, excepting for the following parameters: the X-axis and the Y-axis distribution for body sway and skewness and kurtosis for body sway speed, the cross correlations for body sway and body sway speed, the C ratio of the power spectrum area on the X-axis, the A ratio of the power spectrum area on the Y-axis and the root of the mean square-axis. Inter-correlation coefficients between parameters in each domain of distance, center of pressure, distribution of amplitude, area, velocity, power spectrum, and vector for body sway were mostly high values of 0.9 or over. Thus, it was considered that there is a close relationship between theoretically similar parameters and any of them could be selected as useful parameters.
Based on the above-stated examination, 60 evaluation parameters shown in Table 5 were finally selected.
