2021, Volume 17
Validation of the new version of "the susceptibility test to the body injuries during the fall" (STBIDF-M)
Bartłomiej Gąsienica Walczak1, Roman Maciej Kalina2
1Health Institute, Podhale State College of Applied Sciences in Nowy Targ, Nowy Targ, Poland
2Faculty of Health Sciences, Lomza State University of Applied Sciences, Lomza, Poland
Author for correspondence: Bartłomiej Gąsienica Walczak; Health Institute, Podhale State College of Applied Sciences in Nowy Targ, Nowy Targ, Poland; email: firstname.lastname@example.org
Background and Study Aim: The main premise of the modification of "the susceptibility test to the body injuries during the fall" (STBIDF) was the intention to increase the diagnostic power of this test and the motor safety of the tested person. In the three-task version of the STBIDF, the evaluation of body part control errors during a simulated back fall was not based on homogeneous criteria (points): legs 1, 2; hips, head, 1, 2, 3; hands 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. Increasing the STBIDF-M tasks to six is a consequence of the assumption that the criteria for evaluating these errors must be relatively standardized for each of the observed body parts during a simulated fall. The aim of these studies is theoretical and empirical argumentation justifying the validity of the modification made.
Material and Methods: Pre-test (deep squat; therapist's hands are set in pronation, while patient's/client's hands are in supination – "hands to hands"). The first STBIDF-M task remained the same as in the previous one (“on the command GO as quick as possible lie down on your back”); second task (the same, but after jumping from the platform about 20 cm high); third task ("from the vertical posture, press the sponge with the chin to the chest, and on the command GO again lie on the back"); fourth task (the same, but after jumping from the platform); fifth task (“from the vertical posture, press the sponge with the chin to the chest, on the command READY start clapping hands, and on the command GO again lie on the back”) sixth task (“all activities the same, but after command GO at first jump into the back”). As a consequence, errors in controlling the legs, hips and head were evaluated on a scale from 1 to 6, and for hands from 1 to 12 points (this score, divided by 2, makes it possible to compare the errors of control of the observed body parts on a homogeneous scale from 1 to 6). Total points is a general indicator of the susceptibility to body injuries during the fall (IndexSBIDF-M): very low (0-2), low (3-9) average (10-17), high (18-25), very high (26-30). Relatively for particular body parts (IndexSBPIDF-M): very low (0-1), low (1.5-2) average (2.5-4), high (4.5-5), very high (5.5-6).
The empirical part of the validation was based on the test results of 36 female physiotherapy students, aged 20-22 (mean 20.69 years). The empirical frame of reference was the results of 68 female physiotherapy students tested during the validation of STBIDF (2011).
Results: A statistically significant difference concerns the proportion of people who committed foot control errors (p<0.01): during STBIDF-M 72%, during STBIDF 41%. Fewer students committed hip control errors (39%), while during STBIDF 56% (p<0.20). In both studies, hand and head control errors exceeded 91% in both groups.
Conclusions: Empirical evidence of the increase in the diagnostic power of the test is primarily a statistically significant difference of people who committed errors in controlling their legs during a simulated fall back. This is the effect of a threefold increase in the ability to observe this phenomenon during STBIDF-M. The reduction in the proportion of people who committed hip control errors during the modified test is further evidence of the increased motor safety of the test subjects. This phenomenon can be explained by the effectiveness of the pre-test. People who are unable to complete a deep squat are tested on a stand. We recommend STBIDF-M as a safe tool for diagnosing the susceptibility to injury during the fall of children over 6 years of age without age and health restrictions (not excluding neuro-cognitive patients) with the exception of some patients with spinal injuries.
Key words: innovative agonology, motor safety, neuro-cognitive patients, pre-test, safe fall