4.3 Article

Reliability and validity of three functional tests in ambulatory patients with spinal cord injury

Journal

SPINAL CORD
Volume 51, Issue 3, Pages 214-217

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/sc.2012.126

Keywords

spinal cord injury; walking; balance; muscle strength; rehabilitation

Funding

  1. Thailand Research Fund (TRF)
  2. Improvement of Physical Performance and Quality of Life (IPQ) Research Group
  3. Khon Kaen University, Thailand

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Study design: A cross-sectional study. Objectives: To investigate reliability, discriminative ability and concurrent validity of three functional tests (including the 10-meter walk test (10MWT), timed up and go test (TUGT) and five times sit-to-stand test (FTSST)) using the Functional Independence Measure Locomotor (FIM-L) scores as a standard criterion. Setting: A tertiary rehabilitation center, Thailand. Methods: Subjects were 66 patients with spinal cord injury (SCI), who were able to walk at least 50 m unassisted with or without a walking device (FIM-L scores 6-7). They were tested for functional ability using the 10MWT, TUGT and FTSST. Sixteen subjects also assessed the ability using three assessors to evaluate the inter-tester reliability of the tools. Results: The three functional tests demonstrated excellent inter-tester reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient (3,3) = 0.997-1.00) and could clearly distinguish between subjects who walked with and without a walking device. In addition, the tests showed significant correlation with walking categories or FIM-L scores (r(pb) -0.778, -0.692 and -0.595 for the 10MWT, TUGT and FTSST, respectively, P<0.001). Conclusion: The findings support reliability and validity of the 10MWT, TUGT and FTSST to assess levels of independences in ambulatory subjects with SCI. Spinal Cord (2013) 51, 214-217; doi:10.1038/sc.2012.126; published online 13 November 2012

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available