ABSTRACT
Purpose: The main purpose is to produce a French-Canadian translation of the "STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology" (STROBE) Statement under the proposed name of "outil STROBE" and to assess the cross-cultural validity of its content. The secondary purpose is to examine its preliminary interrater reliability. Method: A modified approach to Vallerand's cross-cultural validation methodology was used. First, professional translators and clinical practitioners produced a parallel reverse translation of the "STROBE Statement." Then, a committee of experts (P1) examined the translated versions and created a first experimental draft of the "outil STROBE." This draft was assessed and modified by a second committee of experts (P2). Finally, 32 future professionals doing their master's degree in physiotherapy and occupational therapy assessed this second experimental version of the tool using an ambiguity scale of 8 points (0 meaning "not at all ambiguous" and 7 meaning "extremely ambiguous"). The main co-researchers examined the problematic elements and proposed final modifications. Ten observational studies published in French after 1980 were assessed by two independent raters using the French-Canadian version of the "outil STROBE." The kappa coefficient was used to examine interrater reliability. Results: For the different elements of the final version of the "outil STROBE," the averages on the ambiguity scale varied from 0.0 to 2.4. No element received an average below 2.4, which showed a high level of clarity. The interrater reliability (n = 2) for the "outil STROBE" is thought to be good for 74% of individual elements, according to the kappa coefficient values obtained. Conclusions: The process's five rigorous steps enabled the production of a valid French-Canadian version of the "STROBE Statement."
ABSTRACT
Biofeedback has been shown to minimize body sway during quiet standing. However, limited research has reported the optimal sensitivity parameters of visual biofeedback related to the center of pressure (COP) sway. Accordingly, 19 young adults (6 males; 13 females; aged 21.3 ± 2.5) stood with feet together and performed three visual biofeedback intensities [unmodified biofeedback (UMBF), BF magnified by 5 (BF5), BF magnified by 10 (BF10)], along with control trials with no biofeedback (NBF). The participants were instructed to stand as still as possible while minimizing the movements of the visual target. The findings revealed that UMBF produced significantly greater COP displacement in both the anterior-posterior (AP) and medial-lateral directions, as well as greater standard deviation of the COP in the AP direction (p < 0.05). Additionally, NBF showed significantly greater 95 % area ellipse than the UMBF, BF5, and BF10 intensities (p < 0.001). Therefore, the most sensitive COP scales generated the least amount of postural sway. However, there were no significant differences on any of the COP measures between BF5 and BF10. This research provides insight with respect to the proper scale on which biofeedback should be given in order to improve postural control (i.e., BF5 or BF10).
