@article{HenschkeKaplickWochatzetal.2022,
  author    = {Henschke, Jakob and Kaplick, Hannes and Wochatz, Monique and Engel, Tilman},
  title     = {Assessing the validity of inertial measurement units for shoulder kinematics using a commercial sensor-software system},
  series = {Health science reports},
  volume    = {5},
  journal   = {Health science reports},
  number    = {5},
  publisher = {Wiley},
  address   = {Hoboken},
  issn      = {2398-8835},
  doi       = {10.1002/hsr2.772},
  pages     = {1 -- 11},
  year      = {2022},
  abstract  = {Background and Aims Wearable inertial sensors may offer additional kinematic parameters of the shoulder compared to traditional instruments such as goniometers when elaborate and time-consuming data processing procedures are undertaken. However, in clinical practice simple-real time motion analysis is required to improve clinical reasoning. Therefore, the aim was to assess the criterion validity between a portable "off-the-shelf" sensor-software system (IMU) and optical motion (Mocap) for measuring kinematic parameters during active shoulder movements. Methods 24 healthy participants (9 female, 15 male, age 29 +/- 4 years, height 177 +/- 11 cm, weight 73 +/- 14 kg) were included. Range of motion (ROM), total range of motion (TROM), peak and mean angular velocity of both systems were assessed during simple (abduction/adduction, horizontal flexion/horizontal extension, vertical flexion/extension, and external/internal rotation) and complex shoulder movements. Criterion validity was determined using intraclass-correlation coefficients (ICC), root mean square error (RMSE) and Bland and Altmann analysis (bias; upper and lower limits of agreement). Results ROM and TROM analysis revealed inconsistent validity during simple (ICC: 0.040-0.733, RMSE: 9.7 degrees-20.3 degrees, bias: 1.2 degrees-50.7 degrees) and insufficient agreement during complex shoulder movements (ICC: 0.104-0.453, RMSE: 10.1 degrees-23.3 degrees, bias: 1.0 degrees-55.9 degrees). Peak angular velocity (ICC: 0.202-0.865, RMSE: 14.6 degrees/s-26.7 degrees/s, bias: 10.2 degrees/s-29.9 degrees/s) and mean angular velocity (ICC: 0.019-0.786, RMSE:6.1 degrees/s-34.2 degrees/s, bias: 1.6 degrees/s-27.8 degrees/s) were inconsistent. Conclusions The "off-the-shelf" sensor-software system showed overall insufficient agreement with the gold standard. Further development of commercial IMU-software-solutions may increase measurement accuracy and permit their integration into everyday clinical practice.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{HeinzeWeckKuehne2022,
  author    = {Heinze, Peter Eric and Weck, Florian and K{\"u}hne, Franziska},
  title     = {Assessing patient preferences},
  series = {Frontiers in psychology},
  volume    = {12},
  journal   = {Frontiers in psychology},
  publisher = {Frontiers Media},
  address   = {Lausanne},
  issn      = {1664-1078},
  doi       = {10.3389/fpsyg.2021.795776},
  pages     = {10},
  year      = {2022},
  abstract  = {Despite the positive effects of including patients' preferences into therapy on psychotherapy outcomes, there are still few thoroughly validated assessment tools at hand. We translated the 18-item Cooper-Norcross Inventory of Preferences (C-NIP) into German and aimed at replicating its factor structure. Further, we investigated the reliability of the questionnaire and its convergence with trait measures. A heterogeneous sample of N = 969 participants took part in our online survey. Performing ESEM models, we found acceptable model fit for a four-factor structure similar to the original factor structure. Furthermore, we propose an alternative model following the adjustment of single items. The German C-NIP showed acceptable to good reliability, as well as small correlations with Big-Five personality traits, trait and attachment anxiety, locus of control, and temporal focus. However, we recommend further replication of the factor structure and further validation of the C-NIP.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{HeinzeWeckKuehne2022,
  author    = {Heinze, Peter Eric and Weck, Florian and K{\"u}hne, Franziska},
  title     = {Assessing Patient Preferences},
  series = {Frontiers in Psychology},
  volume    = {12},
  journal   = {Frontiers in Psychology},
  publisher = {Frontiers Research Foundation},
  address   = {Lausanne},
  issn      = {1664-1078},
  doi       = {10.3389/fpsyg.2021.795776},
  pages     = {10},
  year      = {2022},
  abstract  = {Despite the positive effects of including patients' preferences into therapy on psychotherapy outcomes, there are still few thoroughly validated assessment tools at hand. We translated the 18-item Cooper-Norcross Inventory of Preferences (C-NIP) into German and aimed at replicating its factor structure. Further, we investigated the reliability of the questionnaire and its convergence with trait measures. A heterogeneous sample of N = 969 participants took part in our online survey. Performing ESEM models, we found acceptable model fit for a four-factor structure similar to the original factor structure. Furthermore, we propose an alternative model following the adjustment of single items. The German C-NIP showed acceptable to good reliability, as well as small correlations with Big-Five personality traits, trait and attachment anxiety, locus of control, and temporal focus. However, we recommend further replication of the factor structure and further validation of the C-NIP.},
  language  = {en}
}