4.6 Article

Reliability and validity of the six-minute arm test for the evaluation of cardiovascular fitness in people with spinal cord injury

Journal

ARCHIVES OF PHYSICAL MEDICINE AND REHABILITATION
Volume 88, Issue 4, Pages 489-495

Publisher

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.apmr.2006.12.044

Keywords

arm ergometry test; exercise test; physical fitness; rehabilitation; spinal cord injuries

Funding

  1. Canadian Institutes of Health Research [63617] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives: To design a submaximal arm ergometry test (six-minute ann test [6-MAT]), for persons with spinal cord injury (SCI) and to determine the test-retest reliability and concurrent validity of this test. Design: Prospective, exploratory, methodologic study. To determine test-retest reliability, subjects completed the 6-MAT on 2 days, separated by 1 week. Validity was determined by comparing 6-MAT results with peak oxygen consumption (Vo(2)peak). Setting: Tertiary rehabilitation center. Participants: Thirty subjects with SCI (mean age, 36.3y; 83% male). Interventions: Not applicable. Main Outcome Measures: Subjects were evaluated on the 6-MAT and a Vo(2)peak test. Results: All subjects were able to complete the 6-MAT. Test-retest reliability of steady-state oxygen consumption ((V) over dot o(2)) and heart rate during the 6-MAT were excellent (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC],.81; 95% confidence interval [CI],.58-.92; ICC=.90; 95% CI,.75-.96, respectively). The correlation between Vo(2)peak and 6-MAT (V) over dot o(2) was excellent (r=.92) and the correlations between Vo(2)peak and 6-MAT heart rate (r=.63) and Vo(2)peak and 6-MAT power output (r=.73) were good. Conclusions: This study showed that the 6-MAT has acceptable values for test-retest reliability and validity. The 6-MAT should be further tested for responsiveness to enhance its use as a clinical tool.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available