4.2 Article

Validity and reliability of the Glittre-ADL test in adults with asthma

Journal

PHYSIOTHERAPY THEORY AND PRACTICE
Volume 39, Issue 5, Pages 1052-1060

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/09593985.2022.2114301

Keywords

Validity and reliability; asthma; activities of daily living

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study confirmed the construct validity and reliability of the Glittre-ADL test for assessing activities of daily living in adults with asthma. However, a considerable learning effect was observed.
Introduction Adults with asthma may have limitations in their activities of daily living (ADL) and among the most used tests to assess ADL, performance-based instruments such as the Glittre-Activities of Daily Living (Glittre-ADL) test are available. However, metric properties of this instrument have not yet been investigated in this population. Objective To verify the construct validity and reliability of the Glittre-ADL test in adults with asthma. Methods Fifty-eight adults with asthma had their ADL objectively assessed by Glittre-ADL test, which was performed twice by the same rater. Lung function (spirometry), functional exercise capacity (6-minute walk test, 6MWT), and quality of life (St George's Respiratory Questionnaire, SGRQ) were also assessed. Results Participants were 31% men; 43 +/- 14 years; FEV1 74 +/- 18% predicted. Performance in the Glittre-ADL test correlated with the 6MWT (r = -0.61; P < .0001) and had excellent intraclass correlation coefficient ICC3,1 = 0.95. Standard error of measurement was 23%, and the minimal detectable change was 29 seconds. Furthermore, the learning effect was 11 seconds (5.03%). Conclusion The Glittre-ADL test is valid and reliable for assessing ADL in adults with asthma. However, considerable learning effect was observed and therefore the best of two measures can avoid underestimation.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available