Sit-to-stand movement in children with cerebral palsy: a critical review.
Sit-to-stand research in CP is still a jumble of methods, but newer studies show that locking seat height and support yields clear, usable numbers.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Neves and colleagues scanned every paper they could find on sit-to-stand in kids with cerebral palsy. They wanted to see how researchers were measuring the move and whether the data linked to real-world walking or play skills.
The team included studies that used force plates, video, or simple timers. They compared how each study defined a 'successful' stand and what equipment was used.
What they found
The review found a messy patchwork. Labs used 15 different starting seat heights, five ways to score success, and rarely asked parents if the child could stand at home.
Because of the mix, no one could say which STS test best predicts falls, walking speed, or independence. The authors called the field 'under-explored' and urged common protocols.
How this fits with other research
Medeiros et al. (2015) answered part of the call. They kept seat height and support constant and showed that kids who needed arm support had smaller center-of-pressure sway than those who stood alone. Their tidy numbers give clinicians one concrete benchmark the review said was missing.
Huang et al. (2014) used the same 3-D cameras the review praised. They proved kids with CP can throw Boccia balls accurately even with odd shoulder moves, showing motion-capture can find both deficits and hidden strengths.
Lynn et al. (2013) added another reliable metric—angle-of-catch for spasticity. Together these three studies show that when labs pick one clear variable and stick to it, useful norms appear, exactly what the 2011 paper said the field lacks.
Why it matters
If you test STS in CP, pick one seat height, one foot position, and one success rule—then stay with them. Track center-of-pressure sway or joint angles instead of just stopwatch time. Share your protocol so future meta-analyses can finally link STS scores to gait speed, transfers at school, or fall risk.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Measure STS from a standard 38 cm seat, hands on lap, and record whether the child needs arm support—note it as a quick balance flag.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Sit-to-stand (STS) movement is widely performed in daily life and an important pre requisite for acquisition of functional abilities. However, STS is a biomechanical demanding task which requires high levels of neuromuscular coordination, muscle strength and postural control. As children with cerebral palsy (CP) exhibit a series of impairments in body structures and functions, STS movement performance could be impaired in this population. Thus, this article aimed to review studies that had described how STS movement is performed by children with CP, the factors that influence it and the methodological procedures adopted in it analyses. A search was performed by one reviewer in relevant databases. In all, 12 articles were identified and 9 were selected for the present review. It was detected a large variation in sample characteristics and methodological issues among studies. In fact, standardization of the method applied to STS movement analysis is not fully established. With regard to STS performance, children with CP exhibited variations among them and also when compared with their typical peers. Moreover extrinsic factors appear to influence STS movement performance in these children and its manipulation could be incorporated into rehabilitation protocols. Moreover, the relationship between STS movement and functionality in reviewed articles was not reported. Therefore the review allowed to observe that STS movement has been under-explored in children with CP, with a lack of standardized methodologies and a not well established relationship between this movement and functionality. Thus, further studies about STS movement in CP are necessary.
Research in developmental disabilities, 2011 · doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2011.05.001