Feasibility and Concurrent Validity of Pediatric Performance-Based Postural Control Subtests Using a Pressure-Sensitive Exergaming Device: A Cross-Sectional Study.
Jorn Ockerman, Anke Van Bladel, Edouard Auvinet and 3 others
PMID 41048411WHAT IT FOUND
The Matti device accurately recorded jump counts and balance times compared to an observer, and children preferred it.
However, balance times were significantly shorter than on standard boards, and jump counts were slightly higher, so existing norms do not apply.
Key findings
01Digital scores correlated very strongly with simultaneous observer scores for both tests, confirming the device registers what it is supposed to.
02Concurrent validity with conventional tests was poor: digital balance times were significantly lower than conventional times, and digital jump counts were significantly higher than observer counts.
03Children reported significantly higher enjoyment during digital testing compared to conventional testing.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The study used only two subtests from broader batteries, not comprehensive postural control assessments. Participants were typically developing, active children, so results may not generalize to children with motor impairments or sedentary children. Technical errors led to the exclusion of 19 OBBT and 27 LJT data points. Self-reported enjoyment may be biased in young children who wish to please adults. Inter-rater reliability for the digital condition was not investigated.
Declared interests
Funded by the Flemish funding agency VLAIO. The project had a contract with Creative Therapy, the manufacturer of the Matti device. One author is employed by Creative Therapy, and another is a co-founder, shareholder, and board member of Creative Therapy.
The easy way to misread this
Do not assume the Matti device replicates conventional test results. Balance times were significantly shorter and jump counts significantly higher than conventional or observer-based scores, meaning current normative data are invalid for this device.
Summarised by AI from the full paper, without a clinician reviewing it. Check it against the source before it changes what you do. Read it on PubMed →