Locomotor requirements for bipedal locomotion: A delphi survey

Lois Deming Hedman, David M. Morris, Cecilia L. Graham, Cynthia J. Brown, Matthew P. Ford, Debbie A. Ingram, Marjorie Johnson Hilliard, Alice Salzman

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

4 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background. Bipedal locomotor control requirements may be useful as classifications for walking dysfunction because they go beyond gait analysis to address all issues contributing to walking dysfunction. Objective. The objective of this study was to determine whether locomotor experts could achieve consensus about the requirements for bipedal locomotion. Design and Methods. Locomotor experts from physical therapy and other related professions participated in an electronic mail Delphi survey. Experts recommended additions, deletions, rewording, and merges for 15 proposed locomotor requirements in round 1. In rounds 2 and 3, panelists commented on and rated the validity, mutual exclusiveness, and understandability of each requirement. Consensus was defined a priori as: (1) 75% or more panelists agree or strongly agree that a requirement is valid, mutually exclusive, and understandable in round 3; (2) no difference between round 2 and 3 ratings with kappa coefficients >.60; and (3) a reduction in panelists who commented and convergence of comments between rounds 1 and 3. Content analysis and nonparametric statistics were used. Results. Fifty-eight panelists reached full consensus on 5 locomotor requirements (Initiation, Termination, Anticipatory Dynamic Balance, Multi-Task Capacity, and Walking Confidence) and partial consensus for 7 other requirements. There were no significant differences in ratings between rounds 2 and 3, and there was a decrease in the percentage of panelists who commented between rounds 1 and 3. Limitations. The study's 6-month time frame may have contributed to panelist attrition. Conclusions. Locomotor experts achieved consensus on several bipedal locomotor requirements. With validation, these requirements can provide the framework for a clinically feasible and systematic diagnostic tool for physical therapists to categorize locomotor problems and standardize intervention for walking dysfunction.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)52-67
Number of pages16
JournalPhysical Therapy
Volume94
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2014

Fingerprint

Locomotion
Walking
Physical Therapists
Nonparametric Statistics
Gait
Surveys and Questionnaires
Therapeutics

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation

Cite this

Hedman, L. D., Morris, D. M., Graham, C. L., Brown, C. J., Ford, M. P., Ingram, D. A., ... Salzman, A. (2014). Locomotor requirements for bipedal locomotion: A delphi survey. Physical Therapy, 94(1), 52-67. https://doi.org/10.2522/ptj.20120514
Hedman, Lois Deming ; Morris, David M. ; Graham, Cecilia L. ; Brown, Cynthia J. ; Ford, Matthew P. ; Ingram, Debbie A. ; Hilliard, Marjorie Johnson ; Salzman, Alice. / Locomotor requirements for bipedal locomotion : A delphi survey. In: Physical Therapy. 2014 ; Vol. 94, No. 1. pp. 52-67.
@article{3eb38adfc7a549c8b6e197621032fd4f,
title = "Locomotor requirements for bipedal locomotion: A delphi survey",
abstract = "Background. Bipedal locomotor control requirements may be useful as classifications for walking dysfunction because they go beyond gait analysis to address all issues contributing to walking dysfunction. Objective. The objective of this study was to determine whether locomotor experts could achieve consensus about the requirements for bipedal locomotion. Design and Methods. Locomotor experts from physical therapy and other related professions participated in an electronic mail Delphi survey. Experts recommended additions, deletions, rewording, and merges for 15 proposed locomotor requirements in round 1. In rounds 2 and 3, panelists commented on and rated the validity, mutual exclusiveness, and understandability of each requirement. Consensus was defined a priori as: (1) 75{\%} or more panelists agree or strongly agree that a requirement is valid, mutually exclusive, and understandable in round 3; (2) no difference between round 2 and 3 ratings with kappa coefficients >.60; and (3) a reduction in panelists who commented and convergence of comments between rounds 1 and 3. Content analysis and nonparametric statistics were used. Results. Fifty-eight panelists reached full consensus on 5 locomotor requirements (Initiation, Termination, Anticipatory Dynamic Balance, Multi-Task Capacity, and Walking Confidence) and partial consensus for 7 other requirements. There were no significant differences in ratings between rounds 2 and 3, and there was a decrease in the percentage of panelists who commented between rounds 1 and 3. Limitations. The study's 6-month time frame may have contributed to panelist attrition. Conclusions. Locomotor experts achieved consensus on several bipedal locomotor requirements. With validation, these requirements can provide the framework for a clinically feasible and systematic diagnostic tool for physical therapists to categorize locomotor problems and standardize intervention for walking dysfunction.",
author = "Hedman, {Lois Deming} and Morris, {David M.} and Graham, {Cecilia L.} and Brown, {Cynthia J.} and Ford, {Matthew P.} and Ingram, {Debbie A.} and Hilliard, {Marjorie Johnson} and Alice Salzman",
year = "2014",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.2522/ptj.20120514",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "94",
pages = "52--67",
journal = "Physical Therapy",
issn = "0031-9023",
publisher = "American Physical Therapy Association",
number = "1",

}

Locomotor requirements for bipedal locomotion : A delphi survey. / Hedman, Lois Deming; Morris, David M.; Graham, Cecilia L.; Brown, Cynthia J.; Ford, Matthew P.; Ingram, Debbie A.; Hilliard, Marjorie Johnson; Salzman, Alice.

In: Physical Therapy, Vol. 94, No. 1, 01.01.2014, p. 52-67.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Locomotor requirements for bipedal locomotion

T2 - A delphi survey

AU - Hedman, Lois Deming

AU - Morris, David M.

AU - Graham, Cecilia L.

AU - Brown, Cynthia J.

AU - Ford, Matthew P.

AU - Ingram, Debbie A.

AU - Hilliard, Marjorie Johnson

AU - Salzman, Alice

PY - 2014/1/1

Y1 - 2014/1/1

N2 - Background. Bipedal locomotor control requirements may be useful as classifications for walking dysfunction because they go beyond gait analysis to address all issues contributing to walking dysfunction. Objective. The objective of this study was to determine whether locomotor experts could achieve consensus about the requirements for bipedal locomotion. Design and Methods. Locomotor experts from physical therapy and other related professions participated in an electronic mail Delphi survey. Experts recommended additions, deletions, rewording, and merges for 15 proposed locomotor requirements in round 1. In rounds 2 and 3, panelists commented on and rated the validity, mutual exclusiveness, and understandability of each requirement. Consensus was defined a priori as: (1) 75% or more panelists agree or strongly agree that a requirement is valid, mutually exclusive, and understandable in round 3; (2) no difference between round 2 and 3 ratings with kappa coefficients >.60; and (3) a reduction in panelists who commented and convergence of comments between rounds 1 and 3. Content analysis and nonparametric statistics were used. Results. Fifty-eight panelists reached full consensus on 5 locomotor requirements (Initiation, Termination, Anticipatory Dynamic Balance, Multi-Task Capacity, and Walking Confidence) and partial consensus for 7 other requirements. There were no significant differences in ratings between rounds 2 and 3, and there was a decrease in the percentage of panelists who commented between rounds 1 and 3. Limitations. The study's 6-month time frame may have contributed to panelist attrition. Conclusions. Locomotor experts achieved consensus on several bipedal locomotor requirements. With validation, these requirements can provide the framework for a clinically feasible and systematic diagnostic tool for physical therapists to categorize locomotor problems and standardize intervention for walking dysfunction.

AB - Background. Bipedal locomotor control requirements may be useful as classifications for walking dysfunction because they go beyond gait analysis to address all issues contributing to walking dysfunction. Objective. The objective of this study was to determine whether locomotor experts could achieve consensus about the requirements for bipedal locomotion. Design and Methods. Locomotor experts from physical therapy and other related professions participated in an electronic mail Delphi survey. Experts recommended additions, deletions, rewording, and merges for 15 proposed locomotor requirements in round 1. In rounds 2 and 3, panelists commented on and rated the validity, mutual exclusiveness, and understandability of each requirement. Consensus was defined a priori as: (1) 75% or more panelists agree or strongly agree that a requirement is valid, mutually exclusive, and understandable in round 3; (2) no difference between round 2 and 3 ratings with kappa coefficients >.60; and (3) a reduction in panelists who commented and convergence of comments between rounds 1 and 3. Content analysis and nonparametric statistics were used. Results. Fifty-eight panelists reached full consensus on 5 locomotor requirements (Initiation, Termination, Anticipatory Dynamic Balance, Multi-Task Capacity, and Walking Confidence) and partial consensus for 7 other requirements. There were no significant differences in ratings between rounds 2 and 3, and there was a decrease in the percentage of panelists who commented between rounds 1 and 3. Limitations. The study's 6-month time frame may have contributed to panelist attrition. Conclusions. Locomotor experts achieved consensus on several bipedal locomotor requirements. With validation, these requirements can provide the framework for a clinically feasible and systematic diagnostic tool for physical therapists to categorize locomotor problems and standardize intervention for walking dysfunction.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84891588885&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84891588885&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.2522/ptj.20120514

DO - 10.2522/ptj.20120514

M3 - Article

C2 - 23929828

AN - SCOPUS:84891588885

VL - 94

SP - 52

EP - 67

JO - Physical Therapy

JF - Physical Therapy

SN - 0031-9023

IS - 1

ER -

Hedman LD, Morris DM, Graham CL, Brown CJ, Ford MP, Ingram DA et al. Locomotor requirements for bipedal locomotion: A delphi survey. Physical Therapy. 2014 Jan 1;94(1):52-67. https://doi.org/10.2522/ptj.20120514