Dataset Information

Test-retest reliability and sensitivity of the 20-meter walk test among patients with knee osteoarthritis.

ABSTRACT: The 20-meter walk test is a physical function measure commonly used in clinical research studies and rehabilitation clinics to measure gait speed and monitor changes in patients' physical function over time. Unfortunately, the reliability and sensitivity of this walk test are not well defined and, therefore, limit our ability to evaluate real changes in gait speed not attributable to normal variability. The aim of this study was to assess the test-restest reliability and sensitivity of the 20-meter walk test, at a self-selected pace, among patients with mild to moderate knee osteoarthritis (OA) and to suggest a standardized protocol for future test administration.This was a measurement reliability study. Fifteen consecutive people enrolled in a randomized-controlled trial of intra-articular corticosteroid injections for knee OA participated in this study. All participants completed 4 trials on 2 separate days, 7 to 21 days apart (8 trials total). Each day was divided into 2 sessions, which each involved 2 walking trials. We compared walk times between trials with Wilcoxon signed-rank tests. Similar analyses compared average walk times between sessions. To confirm these analyses, we also calculated Spearman correlation coefficients to assess the relationship between sessions. Finally, smallest detectable differences (SDD) were calculated to estimate the sensitivity of the 20-meter walk test.Wilcoxon signed-rank tests between trials within the same session demonstrated that trials in session 1 were significantly different and in the subsequent 3 sessions, the median differences between trials were not significantly different. Therefore, the first session of each day was considered a practice session, and the SDD between the second session of each day were calculated. SDD was -1.59 seconds (walking slower) and 0.15 seconds (walking faster).Practice trials and a standardized protocol should be used in administration of the 20-meter walk test. Changes in walk time between -1.59 seconds (walking slower) and 0.15 seconds (walking faster) should be considered within the range of normal variability of 20-meter walking speed. The primary limitation of our study was a small sample size, which may influence the generalizability of our findings.

SUBMITTER: Motyl JM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3661341 | biostudies-literature | 2013 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Test-retest reliability and sensitivity of the 20-meter walk test among patients with knee osteoarthritis.

Motyl Jillian M JM Driban Jeffrey B JB McAdams Erica E Price Lori Lyn LL McAlindon Timothy E TE

BMC musculoskeletal disorders 20130510

<h4>Background</h4>The 20-meter walk test is a physical function measure commonly used in clinical research studies and rehabilitation clinics to measure gait speed and monitor changes in patients' physical function over time. Unfortunately, the reliability and sensitivity of this walk test are not well defined and, therefore, limit our ability to evaluate real changes in gait speed not attributable to normal variability. The aim of this study was to assess the test-restest reliability and sensi ...[more]

PMID: 23663561

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionResearch and clinical settings use the 10-meter walk test (10MWT) to measure locomotor capacity with considerable methodological diversity. Comparison between healthy and disabled children is frequent; however, the reproducibility of 10MWT using different methods is unknown.ObjectivesThis study analysed intrasubject, test-retest reliability, and agreement of four methods of 10MWT, exploring the influence of pace, acceleration-deceleration phases, and anthropometric measurements when calculating mean velocity.MethodsThis cross-sectional study evaluated 120 typical children, both sexes, aged 6, 8, 10, and 12 (n = 30 for each age). The mean times and velocities of the path (10 m) and middle path (6 m) obtained at a self-selected and fast pace were analysed. Initial assessment and another after seven days recorded three measurements per method (sV6 = self-selected pace and 6 m; sV10 = self-selected pace and 10 m; fV6 = fast pace and 6 m; fV10 = fast pace and 10 m). Interclass correlation coefficient (ICC), multiple regression, and Snedecor-F test (5% significance level) were used.ResultsThe fV10 method had high intrasubject reliability for all tested ages (0.70 < ICC > 0.89); sV10 exhibited high intrasubject reliability for ages 6, 8, and 12 (0.70 < ICC > 0.89) and moderate for age 10 (0.50 < ICC < 0.69).Test-retest reliability at sV6 and fV6 did not reach high ICC in any tested ages. The test-retest reliability at sV10 and fV10 was moderate for ages 6, 8, and 12 (0.50 < ICC > 0.69) and poor for age 10 (0.25 < ICC > 0.49). There was no agreement between methods: sV6 versus sV10 (mean difference = 0.91 m/s; SEM = 0.036); fV6 versus fV10 (mean difference = 1.70; SEM = 0.046). The fV6 method versus fV10 overestimated the velocity (bias = 1.70 m/s).ConclusionsFor typical children, the method that ensured the highest intrasubject reliability used fast pace and 10 m. Moreover, test-retest reliability increased when adopting 10 m at both self-selected and fast pace. The methods were not equivalent but were related, and those that did not compute the entire pathway overestimated the results.

Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate the convergent validity of the six-minute stepper test (6MST) with the variables used in the diagnosis of sarcopenia (appendicular muscle mass, handgrip strength and six-meter gait speed test), as well as to evaluate test-retest reliability and safety when applied to hospitalized elderly patients. Finally, we aimed to compare the performance in the 6MST between hospitalized elderly patients and healthy elderly from the community.Materials and methodsObservational and cross-sectional study. Elderly patients admitted to a private hospital and healthy elderly from the community were recruited. On the first day, the patients included underwent the following assessments: anthropometric, handgrip strength (HGS), six-meter gait speed test (6GST) and 6MST. On the second day, before breakfast, patients underwent body composition assessment. The healthy elderly were evaluated on a single day and performed only anthropometric assessment and 6MST.Results30 hospitalized patients (age 71.0±7.9 years) and 15 healthy elderly (age 68.1±5.8 years) were included. There was a high correlation of 6MST with 6GST (r = 0.78; p<0.001), moderate correlation with HGS (r = 0.59; p<0.001) and low correlation with appendicular muscle mass (r = 0.45; p = 0.01). There was no statistical difference between the first and second 6MST performed by hospitalized elderly (196.2±91.0 cycles vs. 191.3±103.7 cycles; p = 0.66), in addition to an excellent agreement between these measures (ICC = 0.90; 95% IC 0.78-0.95). Only one adverse event (3.3%) occurred in the sample.Conclusion6MST showed convergent validity with the functional variables used in the diagnosis of sarcopenia. In addition, excellent test-retest reliability was observed, which indicates the need for a single assessment in hospitalized elderly patients. The prevalence of adverse events during the application of the test is low, without resulting in clinical symptoms; therefore, the test is considered safe for this population. In addition, hospitalized elderly patients perform worse in the 6MST compared to healthy elderly from the community.

Project description:BackgroundNeurocognitive testing is an important concussion evaluation tool, but for neurocognitive tests to be useful, their psychometric properties must be well established. Test-retest reliability of computerized neurocognitive tests can influence their clinical utility. The reliability for a commonly used computerized neurocognitive test, CNS Vital Signs, is not well established. The purpose of this study was to examine test-retest reliability and reliable change indices for CNS Vital Signs in a healthy, physically active college population.HypothesisCNS Vital Signs yields acceptable test-retest reliability, with greater reliability between the second and third test administration compared with between the first and second administration.Study designCohort study.Level of evidenceLevel 3.MethodsForty healthy, active volunteers (16 men, 24 women; mean age, 21.05 ± 2.17 years) reported to a clinical laboratory for 3 sessions, 1 week apart. At each session, participants were administered CNS Vital Signs. Outcomes included standard scores for the following CNS Vital Signs domains: verbal memory, visual memory, psychomotor speed, cognitive flexibility, complex attention, processing speed, reaction time, executive functioning, and reasoning.ResultsParticipants performed significantly better on the second session and/or third session than they did on the first testing session on 6 of 9 neurocognitive domains. Pearson r test-retest correlations between sessions ranged from 0.11 to 0.87. Intraclass correlation coefficients ranged from 0.10 to 0.86.ConclusionClinicians should consider using reliable change indices to account for practice effects, identify meaningful score changes due to pathology, and inform clinical decisions.Clinical relevanceThis study highlights the importance of clinicians understanding the psychometric properties of computerized neurocognitive tests when using them in the management of sport-related concussion. If CNS Vital Signs is administered twice within a small time frame (such as 1 week), athletes should be expected to improve between the first and second administration.

Dataset Information

Test-retest reliability and sensitivity of the 20-meter walk test among patients with knee osteoarthritis.

Publications

Test-retest reliability and sensitivity of the 20-meter walk test among patients with knee osteoarthritis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets