Gamified Digital Balance Assessment for Older Adults in Community Settings: Development, Validation, and User Experience Evaluation in a Mixed Methods Study

January 20, 2026 updated by: Jianan Zhao, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine

The study was conducted in two sequential phases to evaluate the reliability and user experience of a GBDA tailored for community-dwelling older adults.

Phase 1: Reliability of digitalized Brief-BESTest assessment In the first phase, participants performed a single balance assessment session, during which both the clinician-administered Brief-BESTest and the digitalized Brief-BESTest were scored concurrently. This approach enabled direct comparison between clinical and automated assessments under identical task conditions.

Testing was conducted in a controlled indoor setting featuring a 1 m × 1 m, 10 cm-thick EVA foam mat (35D density) and safety handrails on three sides. Prior to the assessment, participants completed a baseline questionnaire collecting demographic data (age, sex), anthropometric measurements (height, weight), and fall history (past 12 months). Written informed consent was obtained from all participants.

During the assessment, a certified physical therapist delivered standardized verbal instructions and rated each task using the validated Brief-BESTest rubric (maximum score = 24). Simultaneously, the digitalized Brief-BESTest system recorded participants' movements using a monocular 4K camera and calculated scores via an algorithm that mirrors the original scoring criteria. The torso and joint movements were analyzed in real time, and balance scores were automatically computed.

To evaluate inter-rater reliability, a second trained clinician independently rated 20% of the sample. This concurrent scoring design ensured consistent task execution while enabling evaluation of inter-method reliability of the automated system's scoring against expert clinician judgment.

Phase 2: Impact of GBDA on User Experience The second phase involved a parallel group randomized controlled trial to assess the impact of gamification on user experience. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to either the control group (uses digitalized Brief-BESTest) or the experimental group (uses GDBA) through a simple coin-randomization method by a blinded researcher. Testing was conducted in a 1 m × 3 m evaluation zone equipped with front, side, and rear safety railings, and a centrally placed EVA foam pad (identical to Phase 1). The DBTS system included a display screen, a Logitech Brio 4K webcam (30 fps) for motion tracking, and a built-in speaker for voice prompts. A detachable, ergonomically designed user console-compliant with Chinese anthropometric standards-was mounted on the front railing for interface navigation (see Figure 2).

In the control group, participants performed balance tasks following pre-recorded verbal instructions from a certified physical therapist. In the experimental group, tasks were presented via the GDBA interface, which included animated avatars, voice guidance, progress indicators, and real-time performance feedback. Each participant completed one practice trial per task to minimize learning effects, followed by the formal assessment. A 2-minute seated rest period was provided between tasks to reduce fatigue.

Immediately following the assessment, participants completed self-report measures on perceived exertion, intrinsic motivation, and intention for continued use. They then participated in a brief semi-structured interview exploring their perceptions of system usability and engagement. All interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed for thematic analysis. Participants received a nominal compensation (USD $10 equivalent) upon study completion.

Study Overview

Study Type

Interventional

Enrollment (Actual)

40

Phase

  • Not Applicable

Contacts and Locations

This section provides the contact details for those conducting the study, and information on where this study is being conducted.

Study Locations

    • Shanghai Municipality
      • Shanghai, Shanghai Municipality, China, 200240
        • Hongqi Community

Participation Criteria

Researchers look for people who fit a certain description, called eligibility criteria. Some examples of these criteria are a person's general health condition or prior treatments.

Eligibility Criteria

Ages Eligible for Study

  • Adult
  • Older Adult

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

Yes

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

  • aged 60 or older,
  • living independently,
  • able to walk with or without an assistive device (without external help),
  • willing and able to provide informed consent.

Exclusion Criteria:

  • conditions that impede walking (e.g., hip fractures, lower limb amputations, hemiparesis),
  • medications causing dizziness or affecting balance (e.g., psychotropic drugs),
  • self-reported cardiovascular, pulmonary, neurological, musculoskeletal, or mental disorders,
  • severe fatigue or pain,
  • severe uncorrected vision or hearing impairments that may affect their ability to interact with the digital system

Study Plan

This section provides details of the study plan, including how the study is designed and what the study is measuring.

How is the study designed?

Design Details

  • Primary Purpose: Prevention
  • Allocation: Randomized
  • Interventional Model: Parallel Assignment
  • Masking: Single

Arms and Interventions

Participant Group / Arm
Intervention / Treatment
Active Comparator: Control group
Participants in the control group used Brief-BESTest to assess their balance ability
Uses the traditional Brief-BESTest to assess the balance ability of the participants.
Active Comparator: Experimental group
Participants in the experimental group uses the Gamified Digital Balance Assessment to assess their balance ability
Uses the digital balance assessment tool, which is the digitalized Brief-BESTest, to assess their balance ability.
Experimental: Gamified group
The GDBA builds upon the digitalized Brief-BESTest by incorporating evidence-based gamification elements designed to enhance motivation and engagement among older adults. The gamification design was guided by self-determination theory, which posits that autonomy, competence, and relatedness are key drivers of intrinsic motivation, and by recent systematic reviews on gamification for older adult health interventions.
The GDBA builds upon the digitalized Brief-BESTest by incorporating evidence-based gamification elements designed to enhance motivation and engagement among older adults. The gamification design was guided by self-determination theory, which posits that autonomy, competence, and relatedness are key drivers of intrinsic motivation, and by recent systematic reviews on gamification for older adult health interventions.

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Perceived physical exertion
Time Frame: Through intervention completion, an average of 10 mins
Perceived physical exertion was measured using the Borg Rating of Perceived Exertion (RPE) Scale, ranging from 6 ("no exertion") to 20 ("maximal exertion"). Participants verbally reported their RPE immediately after completing all balance tasks to reflect overall physical demand and fatigue during the assessment. This measure provided insight into the tolerability and physical burden of the assessment procedures.
Through intervention completion, an average of 10 mins
Motivational engagement
Time Frame: Through intervention completion, an average of 10 mins
Motivational engagement was evaluated using the Intrinsic Motivation Inventory (IMI), a validated tool employing a 7-point Likert scale (1 = "not at all true," 7 = "very true") . Three subscales were analyzed: Interest/Enjoyment (assesses task engagement and inherent enjoyment of the activity); Perceived Competence (measures self-perceived ability and confidence in performing the tasks); Pressure/Tension (evaluates task-related stress and anxiety). Subscale scores were calculated as the mean of item responses, with higher scores indicating greater enjoyment, competence, or pressure, respectively. The IMI has demonstrated good internal consistency and construct validity in older adult populations
Through intervention completion, an average of 10 mins
Intention to continue use
Time Frame: Through intervention completion, an average of 10 mins
Intention to continue use was assessed through both quantitative and qualitative methods. Quantitatively, participants rated their likelihood of using the system again on a single-item 7-point Likert scale (1 = "very unlikely," 7 = "very likely") immediately following the assessment. Qualitatively, semi-structured interviews explored factors influencing future use intentions. Interview questions included: "Would you consider using this system regularly for balance checking? Why or why not?" and "What features would encourage you to use this system more often?" Interviews lasted 3-5 minutes, were audio-recorded with permission, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed using Braun and Clarke's six-phase thematic analysis framework.
Through intervention completion, an average of 10 mins

Secondary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Exercise confidence
Time Frame: Through intervention completion, an average of 10 mins
The perceived confidence for their balance ability was assessed through Activities-Specific-Balance-Confidence
Through intervention completion, an average of 10 mins
Fatigue level
Time Frame: Through intervention completion, an average of 10 mins
Fatigue levels during the exercise process were measured using the Borg Rating of Perceived Exertion Scale (BRPE). The scale ranges from 6 (very light) to 20 (exhaustion) . This scale was used to assess the perceived fatigue levels of the elderly participants during the overall evaluation process.
Through intervention completion, an average of 10 mins
User experience
Time Frame: Through intervention completion, an average of 10 mins
The Intrinsic Motivation Inventory (IMI) was employed to measure participants' user experience during the experiment. The IMI is a multidimensional self-report Likert scale questionnaire. In this assessment, the interest/enjoyment subscale, perceived subscale, and pressure/tension subscale of the IMI were utilized to evaluate the participants' levels of intrinsic motivation, enjoyment, perceived competence, and pressure while engaging in the target activity.
Through intervention completion, an average of 10 mins

Other Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Balance confidence
Time Frame: Prior to the intervention
Balance confidence was assessed as baseline variable using the Activities-specific Balance Confidence (ABC) scale (0-100%); for reporting consistency, ABC scores were normalized to a 0-1 scale by dividing by 100 and were collected immediately after the assessment session. Higher scores indicate greater balance confidence.
Prior to the intervention
Balance ability
Time Frame: Through intervention completion, an average of 10 mins
Balance ability was assessed using the Brief-BESTest, a validated clinical tool comprising eight tasks across six domains of postural control: biomechanical constraints, stability limits/verticality, anticipatory postural adjustments, postural responses, sensory orientation, and stability in gait. Each task is scored on a 0-3 scale (0 = inaccurate performance, 3 = normal performance), yielding a total score of 0-24, with higher scores indicating better balance.
Through intervention completion, an average of 10 mins

Collaborators and Investigators

This is where you will find people and organizations involved with this study.

Study record dates

These dates track the progress of study record and summary results submissions to ClinicalTrials.gov. Study records and reported results are reviewed by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) to make sure they meet specific quality control standards before being posted on the public website.

Study Major Dates

Study Start (Actual)

April 20, 2025

Primary Completion (Actual)

May 20, 2025

Study Completion (Actual)

September 20, 2025

Study Registration Dates

First Submitted

April 17, 2025

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

April 25, 2025

First Posted (Actual)

May 6, 2025

Study Record Updates

Last Update Posted (Actual)

January 22, 2026

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

January 20, 2026

Last Verified

January 1, 2024

More Information

Terms related to this study

Other Study ID Numbers

  • Balance assessment tool

Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)

Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?

UNDECIDED

IPD Plan Description

Information might be shared after publication.

Drug and device information, study documents

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product

No

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product

No

This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.

Clinical Trials on ELDERLY PEOPLE

Clinical Trials on Brief-BESTest assessment

Subscribe