4.4 Article

Assessing advanced walking ability in people with stroke using the Groningen Meander Walking Test

Journal

DISABILITY AND REHABILITATION
Volume 40, Issue 23, Pages 2810-2816

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/09638288.2017.1358298

Keywords

Rehabilitation; stroke; walking; outcome measures; reliability

Categories

Funding

  1. Hong Kong Polytechnic University [1-ZVF9]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives: (1) To investigate the intrarater, interrater and test-retest reliabilities of the Groningen Meander Walking Test in people with stroke; (2) to compare the performance of the Groningen Meander Walking Test between people with stroke and healthy older adults; (3) to quantify any correlations between the Groningen Meander Walking Test and other stroke-specific impairment measurements; and (4) to determine the cut off time that best discriminates between 30 people with stroke and 30 age-matched healthy elderly. Method: Using a cross-sectional design, the Groningen Meander Walking Test was administered along with the Fugl-Meyer Motor Assessment for the lower extremities, measurement of lower limb muscle strength, Berg's Balance Scale, comfortable walking speed, Timed up and Go test and Community Integration Measure-Cantonese version. Results: The Groningen Meander Walking Test completion times showed excellent intrarater, interrater and test-retest reliabilities (ICC = 0.984-1.00). Our study also showed that stroke subjects took three times longer (28.8 s) than the healthy subjects (9.0 s) in completion times. Both Groningen Meander Walking Test completion times and overstep scores significantly correlated with comfortable walking speed and Timed up and Go test. The cut off time for people with stroke was 11.98 seconds (sensitivity = 0.967; specificity = 1.0) to discriminate against healthy elderly. Conclusion: The Groningen Meander Walking Test is a highly reliable and valid tool for quantifying the advanced walking abilities of people with stroke.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available