Intra-session test–retest reliability of the Timed “Up & Go” Test when performed by patients with hip fractures

A. G. H. Faleide, B. Bogen, L. Magnussen
{"title":"Intra-session test–retest reliability of the Timed “Up & Go” Test when performed by patients with hip fractures","authors":"A. G. H. Faleide, B. Bogen, L. Magnussen","doi":"10.3109/21679169.2015.1043579","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The aim of this study was to assess the reliability of the Timed “Up & Go” Test (TUG) when performed three times in one session by elderly hip fracture patients. Ninety-two patients in the orthogeriatric unit aged ≥ 65 years old were asked to perform the TUG three times at hospital discharge. Relative and absolute reliability was examined using intra-class correlation coefficients (ICCs) and standard error of measurement (SEM), respectively. The smallest detectable change on an individual level (SDCind) was calculated. Thirty-seven patients completed three trials and were included in the reliability analysis. For each trial, mean performance time became shorter. For TUG trial 2–3 both ICC 1.1 and 3.1 were 0.96 [95% confidence interval (CI) ICC 1.1: 0.78–0.94 and ICC 3.1: 0.92–0.98], indicating no learning effect between these trials. For TUG trial 1–2, ICC 3.1 (0.90, 95% CI: 0.82–0.95) was larger than ICC 1.1 (0.88, 95% CI: 0.78–0.94), indicating a learning effect. The 1.96*SEM was ± 10.22 seconds from TUG trial 1–2 and ± 5.32 seconds from trial 2–3. SDCind was 14.5 seconds and 7.5 seconds for TUG trials 1–2 and 2–3, respectively. In conclusion, in this small study, TUG scores had high intra-session test–retest reliability when three trials were conducted. Only 40.2% of the patients managed to complete all trials. Performing the test twice may be sufficient to provide a reliable TUG measurement in our patient group.","PeriodicalId":186472,"journal":{"name":"The European Journal of Physiotherapy","volume":"19 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The European Journal of Physiotherapy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3109/21679169.2015.1043579","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Abstract The aim of this study was to assess the reliability of the Timed “Up & Go” Test (TUG) when performed three times in one session by elderly hip fracture patients. Ninety-two patients in the orthogeriatric unit aged ≥ 65 years old were asked to perform the TUG three times at hospital discharge. Relative and absolute reliability was examined using intra-class correlation coefficients (ICCs) and standard error of measurement (SEM), respectively. The smallest detectable change on an individual level (SDCind) was calculated. Thirty-seven patients completed three trials and were included in the reliability analysis. For each trial, mean performance time became shorter. For TUG trial 2–3 both ICC 1.1 and 3.1 were 0.96 [95% confidence interval (CI) ICC 1.1: 0.78–0.94 and ICC 3.1: 0.92–0.98], indicating no learning effect between these trials. For TUG trial 1–2, ICC 3.1 (0.90, 95% CI: 0.82–0.95) was larger than ICC 1.1 (0.88, 95% CI: 0.78–0.94), indicating a learning effect. The 1.96*SEM was ± 10.22 seconds from TUG trial 1–2 and ± 5.32 seconds from trial 2–3. SDCind was 14.5 seconds and 7.5 seconds for TUG trials 1–2 and 2–3, respectively. In conclusion, in this small study, TUG scores had high intra-session test–retest reliability when three trials were conducted. Only 40.2% of the patients managed to complete all trials. Performing the test twice may be sufficient to provide a reliable TUG measurement in our patient group.
在髋部骨折患者中进行的定时“Up & Go”测试的会话内测试-再测试信度
摘要本研究的目的是评估老年髋部骨折患者在一次测试中进行三次定时“Up & Go”测试(TUG)的可靠性。92例年龄≥65岁的正畸科患者在出院时被要求进行三次TUG。相对信度和绝对信度分别采用类内相关系数(ICCs)和测量标准误差(SEM)进行检验。计算个体水平上的最小可检测变化(SDCind)。37名患者完成了3项试验,并纳入了可靠性分析。每次试验,平均表现时间变短。在TUG试验2-3中,ICC 1.1和3.1均为0.96[95%可信区间(CI) ICC 1.1: 0.78-0.94和ICC 3.1: 0.92-0.98],表明这些试验之间没有学习效应。在TUG试验1-2中,ICC 3.1 (0.90, 95% CI: 0.82-0.95)大于ICC 1.1 (0.88, 95% CI: 0.78-0.94),表明存在学习效应。TUG试验1-2的1.96*SEM为±10.22秒,试验2-3为±5.32秒。TUG试验1-2和2-3的SDCind分别为14.5秒和7.5秒。总之,在这项小型研究中,当进行三次试验时,TUG得分具有较高的会话内重测信度。只有40.2%的患者完成了所有的试验。在我们的患者组中,进行两次测试可能足以提供可靠的TUG测量。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信