4.5 Article

Normative spatiotemporal gait parameters in older adults

Journal

GAIT & POSTURE
Volume 34, Issue 1, Pages 111-118

Publisher

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2011.03.024

Keywords

Gait; Aging; Sex characteristics; Reference values

Funding

  1. National Institute on Aging [P50 AG016574, U01 AG006786, R01 AG034676]
  2. Alzheimer

Ask authors/readers for more resources

While factor analyses have characterized pace, rhythm and variability as factors that explain variance in gait performance in older adults, comprehensive analyses incorporating many gait parameters have not been undertaken and normative data for many of those parameters are lacking. The purposes of this study were to conduct a factor analysis on nearly two dozen spatiotemporal gait parameters and to contribute to the normative database of gait parameters from healthy, able-bodied men and women over the age of 70. Data were extracted from 294 participants enrolled in the Mayo Clinic Study of Aging. Spatiotemporal gait data were obtained as participants completed two walks across a 5.6-m electronic walkway (GAITRite (R)). Five primary domains of spatiotemporal gait performance were identified: a rhythm domain was characterized by cadence and temporal parameters such as stride time; a phase domain was characterized by temporophasic parameters that constitute distinct divisions of the gait cycle; a variability domain encompassed gait cycle and step variability parameters; a pace domain was characterized by parameters that included gait speed, step length and stride length; and a base of support domain was characterized by step width and step width variability. Several domains differed between men and women and differed across age groups. Reference values of 23 gait parameters are presented which researchers or clinicians can use for assessing and interpreting gait dysfunction in aging persons. (C) 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available