Home › Research › Digital health tools
Test-retest reliability and minimal detectable change scores for the timed "up & go" test, the six-minute walk test, and gait speed in people with Alzheimer disease
Ries JD, Echternach JL, Nof L, Gagnon Blodgett M.. Physical therapy, 2009-04-23
Topic: Brain imaging, connectivity and assessment
Background With the increasing incidence of Alzheimer disease (AD), determining the validity and reliability of outcome measures for people with this disease is necessary. Objective The goals of this study were to assess test-retest reliability of data for the Timed "Up & Go" Test (TUG), the Six-Minute Walk Test (6MWT), and gait speed and to calculate minimal detectable change (MDC) scores for each outcome measure. Performance differences between groups with mild to moderate AD and moderately severe to severe AD (as determined by the Functional Assessment Staging [FAST] scale) were studied. Design This was a prospective, nonexperimental, descriptive methodological study. Methods Background data collected for 51 people with AD included: use of an assistive device, Mini-Mental Status Examination scores, and FAST scale scores. Each participant engaged in 2 test sessions, separated by a 30- to 60-minute rest period, which included 2 TUG trials, 1 6MWT trial, and 2 gait speed trials using a computerized gait assessment system. A specific cuing protocol was followed to achieve optimal performance during test sessions. Results Test-retest reliability values for the TUG, the 6MWT, and gait speed were high for all participants together and for the mild to moderate AD and moderately severe to severe AD groups separately (intraclass correlation coefficients > or = .973); however, individual variability of performance also was high. Calculated MDC scores at the 90% confidence interval were: TUG=4.09 seconds, 6MWT=33.5 m (110 ft), and gait speed=9.4 cm/s. The 2 groups were significantly different in performance of clinical tests, with the participants who were more cognitively impaired being more physically and functionally impaired. Limitations A single researcher for data collection limited sample numbers and prohibited blinding to dementia level. Conclusions The TUG, the 6MWT, and gait speed are reliable outcome measures for use with people with AD, recognizing that individual variability of performance is high. Minimal detectable change scores at the 90% confidence interval can be used to assess change in performance over time and the impact of treatment.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Ries, J. D., Echternach, J. L., Nof, L., & Gagnon Blodgett, M. (2009). Test-retest reliability and minimal detectable change scores for the timed "up & go" test, the six-minute walk test, and gait speed in people with Alzheimer disease. Physical therapy. https://doi.org/10.2522/ptj.20080258
Vancouver
Ries JD, Echternach JL, Nof L, Gagnon Blodgett M. Test-retest reliability and minimal detectable change scores for the timed "up & go" test, the six-minute walk test, and gait speed in people with Alzheimer disease. Physical therapy. 2009. doi:10.2522/ptj.20080258. PMID: 19389792.
BibTeX
@article{ries2009-19389792,
author = {Ries, J. D. and Echternach, J. L. and Nof, L. and Gagnon Blodgett, M.},
title = {{Test-retest reliability and minimal detectable change scores for the timed "up \& go" test, the six-minute walk test, and gait speed in people with Alzheimer disease}},
journal = {Physical therapy},
year = {2009},
doi = {10.2522/ptj.20080258},
pmid = {19389792},
url = {https://doi.org/10.2522/ptj.20080258}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- Results Test-retest reliability values for the TUG, the 6MWT, and gait speed were high for all participants together and for the mild to moderate AD and moderately severe to severe AD groups separately (intraclass correlation coefficients > or = .973); however, individual variability of performance also was high.
- The 2 groups were significantly different in performance of clinical tests, with the participants who were more cognitively impaired being more physically and functionally impaired.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Digital health →
Study details
- Participants51
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 43/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, effect reported and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 25 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 43 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Physical therapy) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 1 / 5 | 2009 — within 20 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 1 / 4 | 51 participants |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 3 / 3 | Studied in people (participant count stated) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 19389792) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 25 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 25 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 43 out of 100. |
| Total | 43 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Related studies in Digital health tools
Also tagged “exercise-training”
125 studies in the library carry the topic tag “exercise-training”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 125 tagged studies.