↓ Skip to main content

Reliability and validity of the Microsoft Kinect for evaluating static foot posture

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Foot and Ankle Research, April 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
11 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
49 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
203 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Reliability and validity of the Microsoft Kinect for evaluating static foot posture
Published in
Journal of Foot and Ankle Research, April 2013
DOI 10.1186/1757-1146-6-14
Pubmed ID
Authors

Benjamin F Mentiplay, Ross A Clark, Alexandra Mullins, Adam L Bryant, Simon Bartold, Kade Paterson

Abstract

The evaluation of foot posture in a clinical setting is useful to screen for potential injury, however disagreement remains as to which method has the greatest clinical utility. An inexpensive and widely available imaging system, the Microsoft Kinect™, may possess the characteristics to objectively evaluate static foot posture in a clinical setting with high accuracy. The aim of this study was to assess the intra-rater reliability and validity of this system for assessing static foot posture.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 203 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 3 1%
Germany 2 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Israel 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Peru 1 <1%
Taiwan 1 <1%
Mexico 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Other 1 <1%
Unknown 190 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 41 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 40 20%
Student > Bachelor 21 10%
Researcher 19 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 17 8%
Other 46 23%
Unknown 19 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 42 21%
Engineering 41 20%
Computer Science 34 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 7%
Sports and Recreations 14 7%
Other 30 15%
Unknown 28 14%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 July 2013.
All research outputs
#1,805,774
of 12,492,738 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Foot and Ankle Research
#166
of 505 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#21,839
of 144,254 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Foot and Ankle Research
#1
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,492,738 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 505 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 144,254 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them