4.6 Article Proceedings Paper

Age- and gender-related test performance in community-dwelling elderly people:: Six-Minute Walk Test, Berg Balance Scale, Timed Up & Go Test, and gait speeds

Journal

PHYSICAL THERAPY
Volume 82, Issue 2, Pages 128-137

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/ptj/82.2.128

Keywords

Berg Balance Scale; elderly; gait speed; Six-Minute Walk Test; Timed Up & Go Test

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background and Purpose. The interpretation of patient scores on clinical tests of physical mobility is limited by a lack of data describing the range of performance among people without disabilities. The purpose of this study was to provide data for 4 common clinical tests in a sample of community-dwelling older adults. Subjects. Ninety-six community-dwelling elderly people (61-89 years of age) with independent functioning performed 4 clinical tests. Methods. Data were collected on the Six-Minute Walk Test (6MV), Berg Balance Scale (BBS), and Timed Up & Go Test (TUG) and during comfortable- and fast-speed walking (CGS and FGS). Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were used to determine the test-retest reliability for the 6MW, TUG, CGS, and FGS measurements. Data were analyzed by gender and age (60-69, 70-79, and 80-89 years) cohorts, similar to previous studies. Means, standard deviations, and 95% confidence intervals for each measurement were calculated for each cohort. Results. The 6MW, TUG, CGS, and FGS measurements showed high test-retest reliability (ICC [2,1] =.95-.97). Mean test scores showed a trend of age-related declines for the 6MW, BBS, TUG, CGS, and FGS for both male and female subjects. Discussion and Conclusion. Preliminary descriptive data suggest that physical therapists should use age-related data when interpreting patient data obtained for the 6MW, BBS, TUG, CGS and FGS. Further data on these clinical tests with larger sample sizes are needed to serve as a reference for patient comparisons.

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