description |
Eija Hartikainen. 2017. Dynaamisen tasapainotestin toistettavuus ja validointi.
Liikuntabiologian tieteenalaryhmä, Jyväskylän yliopisto, Biomekaniikan Pro gradututkielma,
114s.
Tasapaino on kokonaisuus, mitä ohjataan useiden eri säätelyjärjestelmien avulla. Näin ollen
tasapainon tutkimiseen kehitettyjen mittausvälineiden on syytä mitata tasapainoa
toistettavasti ja validisti. Tässä tutkielmassa selvitettiin Dynaamisen tasapainotestin
toistettavuutta ja validiteettia 20 tutkittavalla, joiden keski-ikä oli 28,6 (±6,3).
Tasapainotesti suoritettiin moottoroidulla voimalevyllä, jolla horjutettiin tutkittavien
tasapainoa aiheuttamalla 32 ulkoista häiriötä liikuttamalla voimalevyä eteen- ja taaksepäin
tutkittavien tietämättä häiriöiden liikesuuntaa. Yksi häiriösarja sisälsi 32 häiriötä, joiden amplitudi oli 30 cm ja jarrutusnopeus oli 2 m/s koko testin ajan. Häiriösarjan nopeutta ja kiihtyvyyttä kasvatettiin portaittain: häiriösarja muodostui viidestä eri nopeudesta, 0,05-0,10- 0,15- 0,20 ja 0,25 m/s, ja kuudesta eri kiihtyvyydestä, 1,0- 1,50- 2,0- 2,50- 3,0- 3,50 m/s2. Dynaaminen tasapainotesti toistettiin viisi kertaa.
Dynaamisessa tasapainotestissä mitattiin häiriöiden aiheuttamat painekeskipisteessä (COP)tapahtuneet muutokset: Displacement Time (TIME), painekeskipisteen maksimipoikkeamaan kulunut aika häiriön alusta, Displacement Peak to Peak (P2P), painekeskipisteen maksimipoikkeama häiriön suuntaan, Displacement Max (MAX), koko häiriön aikainen painekeskipisteen maksimipoikkeama, Displacement Post (POST), painekeskipisteen maksimipoikkeama 500 ms jälkeen häiriön loppumisesta ja COP Sum(SUM), koko tasapainon korjaus häiriön aikana.
Tulosten analysoinnissa käytettiin 32 suorituksesta viittä eteenpäin (2, 6, 13, 20, 29) ja
viittä taaksepäin (1, 5, 14, 19, 30) suuntautuvaa suoritusta. Testin toistettavuutta tutkittiin Pearsonin korrelaatiokertoimien, Intraclass Correlation Coefficient -menetelmän (ICC), variaatiokertoimen (CV) ja variaatiokertoimen neliöjuuren (CVrms) avulla sekä
määrittämällä 95 % luottamusvälit (CI). Validiteetin selvittämiseksi suoritettiin HUR
Balance Platform BT4 tasapainolevyllä Modifioitu Rombergin staattinen tasapainotesti,
mikä koostui neljästä eri testiasennosta, ja dynaamista tasapainoa mittaava Toiminnallinen
tasapainotesti, missä mitattiin 2,5 metrin lankun päästä päähän kulkemiseen käytetty aika.
Toistettavuus vaihteli analysoitavien muuttujien mukaan. Koko tasapainon korjauksesta
kertova parametri, SUM, oli toistettavin ICC- arvojen ollessa 0,47- 0,84. Kaikkien
muuttujien CV- arvot osoittivat viiden mittaussarjan välisen vaihtelun olevan pääsääntöisesti 12- 30 % välillä. CVrms- arvojen mukaan muuttujien välinen toistettavuus
oli hyvä CVrms- arvojen jäädessä, yhtä taaksepäin suuntautunutta suoritusta lukuun
ottamatta, alle 10 prosentin.
Modifioidun Rombergin testin ja Toiminnallisen tasapainotestin tulokset mukailivat
kirjallisuuden tuloksia, mutta kumpikaan testi ei tukenut riittävästi Dynaamisen
tasapainotestin validiteettia. Modifioidun Rombergin testiasennon ja Dynaamisen
tasapainotestin muuttujien välisissä korrelaatioissa oli suurta vaihtelua. Toiminnallisen
tasapainotestin ja Dynaamisen tasapainotestin korrelaatiot jäivät mataliksi; suoritusten
joukossa oli vain yksi merkitsevästi korreloiva suoritus (P2P 20.1 r=-0,61 p<0,01). Muut
raportoitavat korrelaatiot jäivät tilastollisesti melkein merkitsevälle tasolle (p<0,05).
Dynaamisen tasapainotestin tulokset kertovat testin toistettavuudesta vain tämän
tutkimusryhmän ja mittaustavan osalta. Dynaamisen tasapainotestin toistettavuus vaihteli
muuttujasta riippuen heikosta hyvään. Testillä voidaan mitata tutkittavan dynaamista
tasapainoa toistettavasti suorittamalla testi useammin kuin kerran. Tämä kuitenkin vaatii
muuttujien huolellisen valitsemisen. Dynaamisen tasapainotestin validiteetti tarvitsee
jatkotutkimusta, sillä käytetyt testimenetelmät, Modifioitu Rombergin tasapainotesti ja
Toiminnallinen tasapainotesti, eivät olleet riittävät validiteetin selvittämiseen.
Eija Hartikainen. 2017. The reliability and validity of the Dynamic balance test. Unit of
Biology of Physical Activity, University of Jyväskylä, Master’s Thesis in Biomechanics, 114p.
Postural control is regulated by a number of systems; it is the interaction between the
musculoskeletal and neural systems. Therefore balance tests are necessary to measure the
balance reliably and validly. Twenty volunteers participated in this study, their average age was 28,6 (±6,3). The Dynamic balance test was performed on a force platform which was
moved 30 cm anterior-posterior directions. The subjects stood on the force platform and
their balance was distracted by moving the force platform forward and backward. Forward-
Backward movement to disturb subject’s balance was repeated 32 times. Velocity and acceleration of the balance disturbances grew stepwise; the test consisted of five different
velocities, 0,05- 0,10- 0,15- 0,20 and 0,25 m/s, and six different accelerates, 1,0- 1,50- 2,0- 2,50- 3,0- 3,50 m/s2. The force platform braking velocity was constant at 2 m/s. One of the disturbance series included 32 disturbance so Dynamic balance test was repeated five times but subjects were not awere of the direction of disturbances.
Dynamic balance test was measured by the changes in center of pressure (COP):
Displacement Time (TIME), the time elapsed to the maximum deviation of the center of
pressure (COP) since beginning of the disturbance, Displacement Peak to Peak (P2P),
maximum deviation of the COP to direction of the disturbance, Displacement Max (MAX),
maximum deviation of the COP the time of the whole disturbance, Displacement Post
(POST), maximum deviation of the COP after 500 ms from ending of the disturbance and
COP Sum (SUM), correction of the whole balance during disturbance.
The analysis of the results was used five forward (2, 6, 13, 20, 29) and the five backward
(1, 5, 14, 19, 30) performances. Repeatability of the Dynamic balance test was examined by
using five different methods: Pearson Correlation Coefficient, Intraclass Correlation
Coefficient (ICC) method, Coefficient of Variation (CV), CV root-mean-square (CVrms)
and by determining the 95 % Confidence Intervals (CI). Dynamic balance test was validated by performing Functional balance test and Modified Romberg’s balance test by using HUR Balance Platform BT4 balance board. The Modified Romberg test consisted of four tasks focusing on subjects balance. In the Functional balance test subjects had to walk on top of a plank, which was 2,5m long, from end to end as quickly as possible and without error.
The repeatability of Dynamic balance test was varying. SUM variable was the most reliable
measuring parameter when the ICC was varying between 0,47- 0,84. CV-values indicate
that variance in all five measuring series were ranging from 12 to 30 %. CVrms-values of
repeatability between variables were good because almost all CVrms values were less than 10 %.
The results of the Modified Romberg test and Functional balance test retold the results of
the literature but validity of the Dynamic balance test did not receive adequate support from the Modified Romberg’s test or Functional balance test. Between the Modified Romberg
test tasks and Dynamic balance test disturbance were showed a slight dependence; more
challenging task correlated more prone with faster disturbance. The correlations between
the tests were a large variation depending on the Modified Romberg’s tasks and Dynamic
balance test’s variables. The correlations between the Functional balance test and Dynamic
balance test were low. Among the performances was the only one significantly correlated to
performance (P2P 20.1 r=-0,61 p<0,01). Performance of other correlations were nearly significant level (p<0,05).
The results of the Dynamic balance test indicate the test repeatability only in this group and implementation. Dynamic balance test’s reliability ranged from poor to good depending on
the variable. The test can be used to measure the dynamic balance reliability when the test
is performed more often than once. This requires careful selection of variables. The Dynamic balance test validity needs further research as the test methods used, the Modified Romberg test and Functional balance test, were not sufficient validity of evidence.
|
fullrecord |
[{"key": "dc.contributor.advisor", "value": "Piirainen, Jarmo", "language": null, "element": "contributor", "qualifier": "advisor", "schema": "dc"}, {"key": "dc.contributor.advisor", "value": "Linnamo, Vesa", "language": null, "element": "contributor", "qualifier": "advisor", "schema": "dc"}, {"key": "dc.contributor.author", "value": "Hartikainen, Eija", "language": null, "element": "contributor", "qualifier": "author", "schema": "dc"}, {"key": "dc.date.accessioned", "value": "2017-01-21T16:33:46Z", "language": null, "element": "date", "qualifier": "accessioned", "schema": "dc"}, {"key": "dc.date.available", "value": "2017-01-21T16:33:46Z", "language": null, "element": "date", "qualifier": "available", "schema": "dc"}, {"key": "dc.date.issued", "value": "2017", "language": null, "element": "date", "qualifier": "issued", "schema": "dc"}, {"key": "dc.identifier.other", "value": "oai:jykdok.linneanet.fi:1659339", "language": null, "element": "identifier", "qualifier": "other", "schema": "dc"}, {"key": "dc.identifier.uri", "value": "https://jyx.jyu.fi/handle/123456789/52782", "language": null, "element": "identifier", "qualifier": "uri", "schema": "dc"}, {"key": "dc.description.abstract", "value": "Eija Hartikainen. 2017. Dynaamisen tasapainotestin toistettavuus ja validointi.\nLiikuntabiologian tieteenalaryhm\u00e4, Jyv\u00e4skyl\u00e4n yliopisto, Biomekaniikan Pro gradututkielma,\n114s.\n\nTasapaino on kokonaisuus, mit\u00e4 ohjataan useiden eri s\u00e4\u00e4telyj\u00e4rjestelmien avulla. N\u00e4in ollen\ntasapainon tutkimiseen kehitettyjen mittausv\u00e4lineiden on syyt\u00e4 mitata tasapainoa\ntoistettavasti ja validisti. T\u00e4ss\u00e4 tutkielmassa selvitettiin Dynaamisen tasapainotestin\ntoistettavuutta ja validiteettia 20 tutkittavalla, joiden keski-ik\u00e4 oli 28,6 (\u00b16,3).\nTasapainotesti suoritettiin moottoroidulla voimalevyll\u00e4, jolla horjutettiin tutkittavien\ntasapainoa aiheuttamalla 32 ulkoista h\u00e4iri\u00f6t\u00e4 liikuttamalla voimalevy\u00e4 eteen- ja taaksep\u00e4in\ntutkittavien tiet\u00e4m\u00e4tt\u00e4 h\u00e4iri\u00f6iden liikesuuntaa. Yksi h\u00e4iri\u00f6sarja sis\u00e4lsi 32 h\u00e4iri\u00f6t\u00e4, joiden amplitudi oli 30 cm ja jarrutusnopeus oli 2 m/s koko testin ajan. H\u00e4iri\u00f6sarjan nopeutta ja kiihtyvyytt\u00e4 kasvatettiin portaittain: h\u00e4iri\u00f6sarja muodostui viidest\u00e4 eri nopeudesta, 0,05-0,10- 0,15- 0,20 ja 0,25 m/s, ja kuudesta eri kiihtyvyydest\u00e4, 1,0- 1,50- 2,0- 2,50- 3,0- 3,50 m/s2. Dynaaminen tasapainotesti toistettiin viisi kertaa. \n\nDynaamisessa tasapainotestiss\u00e4 mitattiin h\u00e4iri\u00f6iden aiheuttamat painekeskipisteess\u00e4 (COP)tapahtuneet muutokset: Displacement Time (TIME), painekeskipisteen maksimipoikkeamaan kulunut aika h\u00e4iri\u00f6n alusta, Displacement Peak to Peak (P2P), painekeskipisteen maksimipoikkeama h\u00e4iri\u00f6n suuntaan, Displacement Max (MAX), koko h\u00e4iri\u00f6n aikainen painekeskipisteen maksimipoikkeama, Displacement Post (POST), painekeskipisteen maksimipoikkeama 500 ms j\u00e4lkeen h\u00e4iri\u00f6n loppumisesta ja COP Sum(SUM), koko tasapainon korjaus h\u00e4iri\u00f6n aikana.\n\nTulosten analysoinnissa k\u00e4ytettiin 32 suorituksesta viitt\u00e4 eteenp\u00e4in (2, 6, 13, 20, 29) ja\nviitt\u00e4 taaksep\u00e4in (1, 5, 14, 19, 30) suuntautuvaa suoritusta. Testin toistettavuutta tutkittiin Pearsonin korrelaatiokertoimien, Intraclass Correlation Coefficient -menetelm\u00e4n (ICC), variaatiokertoimen (CV) ja variaatiokertoimen neli\u00f6juuren (CVrms) avulla sek\u00e4\nm\u00e4\u00e4ritt\u00e4m\u00e4ll\u00e4 95 % luottamusv\u00e4lit (CI). Validiteetin selvitt\u00e4miseksi suoritettiin HUR\nBalance Platform BT4 tasapainolevyll\u00e4 Modifioitu Rombergin staattinen tasapainotesti,\nmik\u00e4 koostui nelj\u00e4st\u00e4 eri testiasennosta, ja dynaamista tasapainoa mittaava Toiminnallinen\ntasapainotesti, miss\u00e4 mitattiin 2,5 metrin lankun p\u00e4\u00e4st\u00e4 p\u00e4\u00e4h\u00e4n kulkemiseen k\u00e4ytetty aika.\n\nToistettavuus vaihteli analysoitavien muuttujien mukaan. Koko tasapainon korjauksesta\nkertova parametri, SUM, oli toistettavin ICC- arvojen ollessa 0,47- 0,84. Kaikkien\nmuuttujien CV- arvot osoittivat viiden mittaussarjan v\u00e4lisen vaihtelun olevan p\u00e4\u00e4s\u00e4\u00e4nt\u00f6isesti 12- 30 % v\u00e4lill\u00e4. CVrms- arvojen mukaan muuttujien v\u00e4linen toistettavuus\noli hyv\u00e4 CVrms- arvojen j\u00e4\u00e4dess\u00e4, yht\u00e4 taaksep\u00e4in suuntautunutta suoritusta lukuun\nottamatta, alle 10 prosentin.\n\nModifioidun Rombergin testin ja Toiminnallisen tasapainotestin tulokset mukailivat\nkirjallisuuden tuloksia, mutta kumpikaan testi ei tukenut riitt\u00e4v\u00e4sti Dynaamisen\ntasapainotestin validiteettia. Modifioidun Rombergin testiasennon ja Dynaamisen\ntasapainotestin muuttujien v\u00e4lisiss\u00e4 korrelaatioissa oli suurta vaihtelua. Toiminnallisen\ntasapainotestin ja Dynaamisen tasapainotestin korrelaatiot j\u00e4iv\u00e4t mataliksi; suoritusten\njoukossa oli vain yksi merkitsev\u00e4sti korreloiva suoritus (P2P 20.1 r=-0,61 p<0,01). Muut\nraportoitavat korrelaatiot j\u00e4iv\u00e4t tilastollisesti melkein merkitsev\u00e4lle tasolle (p<0,05).\nDynaamisen tasapainotestin tulokset kertovat testin toistettavuudesta vain t\u00e4m\u00e4n\ntutkimusryhm\u00e4n ja mittaustavan osalta. Dynaamisen tasapainotestin toistettavuus vaihteli\nmuuttujasta riippuen heikosta hyv\u00e4\u00e4n. Testill\u00e4 voidaan mitata tutkittavan dynaamista\ntasapainoa toistettavasti suorittamalla testi useammin kuin kerran. T\u00e4m\u00e4 kuitenkin vaatii\nmuuttujien huolellisen valitsemisen. Dynaamisen tasapainotestin validiteetti tarvitsee\njatkotutkimusta, sill\u00e4 k\u00e4ytetyt testimenetelm\u00e4t, Modifioitu Rombergin tasapainotesti ja\nToiminnallinen tasapainotesti, eiv\u00e4t olleet riitt\u00e4v\u00e4t validiteetin selvitt\u00e4miseen.", "language": "fi", "element": "description", "qualifier": "abstract", "schema": "dc"}, {"key": "dc.description.abstract", "value": "Eija Hartikainen. 2017. The reliability and validity of the Dynamic balance test. Unit of\nBiology of Physical Activity, University of Jyv\u00e4skyl\u00e4, Master\u2019s Thesis in Biomechanics, 114p.\n\nPostural control is regulated by a number of systems; it is the interaction between the\nmusculoskeletal and neural systems. Therefore balance tests are necessary to measure the\nbalance reliably and validly. Twenty volunteers participated in this study, their average age was 28,6 (\u00b16,3). The Dynamic balance test was performed on a force platform which was\nmoved 30 cm anterior-posterior directions. The subjects stood on the force platform and\ntheir balance was distracted by moving the force platform forward and backward. Forward-\nBackward movement to disturb subject\u2019s balance was repeated 32 times. Velocity and acceleration of the balance disturbances grew stepwise; the test consisted of five different\nvelocities, 0,05- 0,10- 0,15- 0,20 and 0,25 m/s, and six different accelerates, 1,0- 1,50- 2,0- 2,50- 3,0- 3,50 m/s2. The force platform braking velocity was constant at 2 m/s. One of the disturbance series included 32 disturbance so Dynamic balance test was repeated five times but subjects were not awere of the direction of disturbances.\n\nDynamic balance test was measured by the changes in center of pressure (COP):\nDisplacement Time (TIME), the time elapsed to the maximum deviation of the center of\npressure (COP) since beginning of the disturbance, Displacement Peak to Peak (P2P),\nmaximum deviation of the COP to direction of the disturbance, Displacement Max (MAX),\nmaximum deviation of the COP the time of the whole disturbance, Displacement Post\n(POST), maximum deviation of the COP after 500 ms from ending of the disturbance and\nCOP Sum (SUM), correction of the whole balance during disturbance.\n\nThe analysis of the results was used five forward (2, 6, 13, 20, 29) and the five backward\n(1, 5, 14, 19, 30) performances. Repeatability of the Dynamic balance test was examined by\nusing five different methods: Pearson Correlation Coefficient, Intraclass Correlation\nCoefficient (ICC) method, Coefficient of Variation (CV), CV root-mean-square (CVrms)\nand by determining the 95 % Confidence Intervals (CI). Dynamic balance test was validated by performing Functional balance test and Modified Romberg\u2019s balance test by using HUR Balance Platform BT4 balance board. The Modified Romberg test consisted of four tasks focusing on subjects balance. In the Functional balance test subjects had to walk on top of a plank, which was 2,5m long, from end to end as quickly as possible and without error.\n\nThe repeatability of Dynamic balance test was varying. SUM variable was the most reliable\nmeasuring parameter when the ICC was varying between 0,47- 0,84. CV-values indicate\nthat variance in all five measuring series were ranging from 12 to 30 %. CVrms-values of\nrepeatability between variables were good because almost all CVrms values were less than 10 %.\n\nThe results of the Modified Romberg test and Functional balance test retold the results of\nthe literature but validity of the Dynamic balance test did not receive adequate support from the Modified Romberg\u2019s test or Functional balance test. Between the Modified Romberg\ntest tasks and Dynamic balance test disturbance were showed a slight dependence; more\nchallenging task correlated more prone with faster disturbance. The correlations between\nthe tests were a large variation depending on the Modified Romberg\u2019s tasks and Dynamic\nbalance test\u2019s variables. The correlations between the Functional balance test and Dynamic\nbalance test were low. Among the performances was the only one significantly correlated to\nperformance (P2P 20.1 r=-0,61 p<0,01). Performance of other correlations were nearly significant level (p<0,05).\n\nThe results of the Dynamic balance test indicate the test repeatability only in this group and implementation. Dynamic balance test\u2019s reliability ranged from poor to good depending on\nthe variable. The test can be used to measure the dynamic balance reliability when the test\nis performed more often than once. This requires careful selection of variables. The Dynamic balance test validity needs further research as the test methods used, the Modified Romberg test and Functional balance test, were not sufficient validity of evidence.", "language": "en", "element": "description", "qualifier": "abstract", "schema": "dc"}, {"key": "dc.description.provenance", "value": "Submitted using Plone Publishing form by Eija Hartikainen (eihartik) on 2017-01-21 16:33:42.748790. Form: Pro gradu -lomake (https://kirjasto.jyu.fi/julkaisut/julkaisulomakkeet/pro-gradu-lomake). JyX data: [jyx_publishing-allowed (fi) =True]", "language": "en", "element": "description", "qualifier": "provenance", "schema": "dc"}, {"key": "dc.description.provenance", "value": "Submitted by jyx lomake-julkaisija (jyx-julkaisija.group@korppi.jyu.fi) on 2017-01-21T16:33:45Z\nNo. of bitstreams: 2\nURN:NBN:fi:jyu-201701211214.pdf: 1227590 bytes, checksum: d5c13ae1cd57b5c95440f332f51bcad2 (MD5)\nlicense.html: 4816 bytes, checksum: 8bbe55230cecf5fdc24a32190f563755 (MD5)", "language": "en", "element": "description", "qualifier": "provenance", "schema": "dc"}, {"key": "dc.description.provenance", "value": "Made available in DSpace on 2017-01-21T16:33:46Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 2\nURN:NBN:fi:jyu-201701211214.pdf: 1227590 bytes, checksum: d5c13ae1cd57b5c95440f332f51bcad2 (MD5)\nlicense.html: 4816 bytes, checksum: 8bbe55230cecf5fdc24a32190f563755 (MD5)\n Previous issue date: 2017", "language": "en", "element": "description", "qualifier": "provenance", "schema": "dc"}, {"key": "dc.format.extent", "value": "1 verkkoaineisto (120 sivua)", "language": null, "element": "format", "qualifier": "extent", "schema": "dc"}, {"key": "dc.format.mimetype", "value": "application/pdf", "language": null, "element": "format", "qualifier": "mimetype", "schema": "dc"}, {"key": "dc.language.iso", "value": "fin", "language": null, "element": "language", "qualifier": "iso", "schema": "dc"}, {"key": "dc.rights", "value": "In Copyright", "language": "en", "element": "rights", "qualifier": null, "schema": "dc"}, {"key": "dc.subject.other", "value": "painekeskipiste", "language": null, "element": "subject", "qualifier": "other", "schema": "dc"}, {"key": "dc.title", "value": "Dynaamisen tasapainotestin toistettavuus ja validointi", "language": null, "element": "title", "qualifier": null, "schema": "dc"}, {"key": "dc.type", "value": "master thesis", "language": null, "element": "type", "qualifier": null, "schema": "dc"}, {"key": "dc.identifier.urn", "value": "URN:NBN:fi:jyu-201701211214", "language": null, "element": "identifier", "qualifier": "urn", "schema": "dc"}, {"key": "dc.type.ontasot", "value": "Pro gradu -tutkielma", "language": "fi", "element": "type", "qualifier": "ontasot", "schema": "dc"}, {"key": "dc.type.ontasot", "value": "Master\u2019s thesis", "language": "en", "element": "type", "qualifier": "ontasot", "schema": "dc"}, {"key": "dc.contributor.faculty", "value": "Liikuntatieteellinen tiedekunta", "language": "fi", "element": "contributor", "qualifier": "faculty", "schema": "dc"}, {"key": "dc.contributor.faculty", "value": "Faculty of Sport and Health Sciences", "language": "en", "element": "contributor", "qualifier": "faculty", "schema": "dc"}, {"key": "dc.contributor.department", "value": "Liikuntabiologian laitos", "language": "fi", "element": "contributor", "qualifier": "department", "schema": "dc"}, {"key": "dc.contributor.department", "value": "Department of Biology of Physical Activity", "language": "en", "element": "contributor", "qualifier": "department", "schema": "dc"}, {"key": "dc.contributor.organization", "value": "University of Jyv\u00e4skyl\u00e4", "language": "en", "element": "contributor", "qualifier": "organization", "schema": "dc"}, {"key": "dc.contributor.organization", "value": "Jyv\u00e4skyl\u00e4n yliopisto", "language": "fi", "element": "contributor", "qualifier": "organization", "schema": "dc"}, {"key": "dc.subject.discipline", "value": "Biomekaniikka", "language": "fi", "element": "subject", "qualifier": "discipline", "schema": "dc"}, {"key": "dc.subject.discipline", "value": "Biomechanics", "language": "en", "element": "subject", "qualifier": "discipline", "schema": "dc"}, {"key": "dc.date.updated", "value": "2017-01-21T16:33:46Z", "language": null, "element": "date", "qualifier": "updated", "schema": "dc"}, {"key": "yvv.contractresearch.funding", "value": "0", "language": null, "element": "contractresearch", "qualifier": "funding", "schema": "yvv"}, {"key": "dc.type.coar", "value": "http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_bdcc", "language": null, "element": "type", "qualifier": "coar", "schema": "dc"}, {"key": "dc.rights.accesslevel", "value": "openAccess", "language": "fi", "element": "rights", "qualifier": "accesslevel", "schema": "dc"}, {"key": "dc.type.publication", "value": "masterThesis", "language": null, "element": "type", "qualifier": "publication", "schema": "dc"}, {"key": "dc.subject.oppiainekoodi", "value": "5012", "language": null, "element": "subject", "qualifier": "oppiainekoodi", "schema": "dc"}, {"key": "dc.subject.yso", "value": "tasapaino", "language": null, "element": "subject", "qualifier": "yso", "schema": "dc"}, {"key": "dc.subject.yso", "value": "toistettavuus", "language": null, "element": "subject", "qualifier": "yso", "schema": "dc"}, {"key": "dc.subject.yso", "value": "validointi", "language": null, "element": "subject", "qualifier": "yso", "schema": "dc"}, {"key": "dc.format.content", "value": "fulltext", "language": null, "element": "format", "qualifier": "content", "schema": "dc"}, {"key": "dc.rights.url", "value": "https://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/", "language": null, "element": "rights", "qualifier": "url", "schema": "dc"}, {"key": "dc.type.okm", "value": "G2", "language": null, "element": "type", "qualifier": "okm", "schema": "dc"}]
|