The Stepping Threshold Test for assessing reactive balance discriminates between older adult fallers and non-fallers.

IF 2.3 Q2 SPORT SCIENCES
Frontiers in Sports and Active Living Pub Date : 2024-10-11 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.3389/fspor.2024.1462177
Natalie Hezel, Theresa Buchner, Clemens Becker, Jürgen M Bauer, Lizeth H Sloot, Simon Steib, Christian Werner
{"title":"The Stepping Threshold Test for assessing reactive balance discriminates between older adult fallers and non-fallers.","authors":"Natalie Hezel, Theresa Buchner, Clemens Becker, Jürgen M Bauer, Lizeth H Sloot, Simon Steib, Christian Werner","doi":"10.3389/fspor.2024.1462177","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The ability to respond effectively to external perturbations is crucial for avoiding falls. The Stepping Threshold Test (STT) has been developed to assess this reactive balance, but its ability to discriminate between fallers and non-fallers is still unsubstantiated. This study aimed to evaluate the discriminant validity of the STT in distinguishing fallers and non-fallers and its convergent validity.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Thirty-six older adults (age = 80 ± 5 years), with 13 (36%) of them reporting a fall history in the past year, completed the STT on a perturbation treadmill. They received surface perturbations of progressively increasing magnitude while standing. Single- and multiple-step thresholds were assessed using an all-step count evaluation (STT-ACE), and a direction-sensitive evaluation strategy (STT-DSE). Receiver operating characteristics and area under the curves (AUC) were analyzed to evaluate the discriminative accuracy. Convergent validity was explored by 13 hypothesized associations with other mobility, psychological, and cognitive assessments.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Fallers and non-fallers significantly differed in the STT-DSE (<i>p</i> = 0.033), but not in the STT-ACE or other commonly used mobility assessments. Acceptable discriminative accuracy was obtained for the STT-DSE (AUC = 0.72), but not for the STT-ACE and other mobility assessments (AUC = 0.53-0.68). Twelve (92%) associations were consistent with our hypotheses for the STT-DSE, and ten (77%) for the STT-ACE.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our findings provide preliminary evidence that the STT, when using the STT-DSE, may discriminate between older adult fallers and non-fallers. The STT appears to be a valid tool for assessing reactive balance, with its STT-DSE being recommended due to its better discriminant and convergent validity compared to the STT-ACE.</p>","PeriodicalId":12716,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Sports and Active Living","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11502312/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in Sports and Active Living","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/fspor.2024.1462177","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SPORT SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: The ability to respond effectively to external perturbations is crucial for avoiding falls. The Stepping Threshold Test (STT) has been developed to assess this reactive balance, but its ability to discriminate between fallers and non-fallers is still unsubstantiated. This study aimed to evaluate the discriminant validity of the STT in distinguishing fallers and non-fallers and its convergent validity.

Methods: Thirty-six older adults (age = 80 ± 5 years), with 13 (36%) of them reporting a fall history in the past year, completed the STT on a perturbation treadmill. They received surface perturbations of progressively increasing magnitude while standing. Single- and multiple-step thresholds were assessed using an all-step count evaluation (STT-ACE), and a direction-sensitive evaluation strategy (STT-DSE). Receiver operating characteristics and area under the curves (AUC) were analyzed to evaluate the discriminative accuracy. Convergent validity was explored by 13 hypothesized associations with other mobility, psychological, and cognitive assessments.

Results: Fallers and non-fallers significantly differed in the STT-DSE (p = 0.033), but not in the STT-ACE or other commonly used mobility assessments. Acceptable discriminative accuracy was obtained for the STT-DSE (AUC = 0.72), but not for the STT-ACE and other mobility assessments (AUC = 0.53-0.68). Twelve (92%) associations were consistent with our hypotheses for the STT-DSE, and ten (77%) for the STT-ACE.

Conclusion: Our findings provide preliminary evidence that the STT, when using the STT-DSE, may discriminate between older adult fallers and non-fallers. The STT appears to be a valid tool for assessing reactive balance, with its STT-DSE being recommended due to its better discriminant and convergent validity compared to the STT-ACE.

用于评估反应平衡的 "迈步阈值测试 "可区分老年人跌倒者和非跌倒者。
简介对外界干扰做出有效反应的能力对于避免跌倒至关重要。步态阈值测试(STT)被用来评估这种反应平衡能力,但其区分跌倒者和非跌倒者的能力仍未得到证实。本研究旨在评估 STT 在区分跌倒者和非跌倒者方面的鉴别有效性及其收敛有效性:36名老年人(年龄为80 ± 5岁)在扰动跑步机上完成了STT测试,其中13人(36%)报告在过去一年中有跌倒史。他们在站立时接受幅度逐渐增大的表面扰动。采用全步计数评估(STT-ACE)和方向敏感评估策略(STT-DSE)对单步和多步阈值进行了评估。通过分析接收者操作特征和曲线下面积(AUC)来评估判别准确性。通过13项与其他行动能力、心理和认知评估之间的假设关联,对收敛有效性进行了探讨:结果:跌倒者和非跌倒者在 STT-DSE 中存在明显差异(p = 0.033),但在 STT-ACE 或其他常用的活动能力评估中不存在差异。STT-DSE 的判别准确度可接受(AUC = 0.72),但 STT-ACE 和其他行动能力评估的判别准确度则不可接受(AUC = 0.53-0.68)。对于 STT-DSE,12 项(92%)关联符合我们的假设,对于 STT-ACE,10 项(77%)符合我们的假设:我们的研究结果提供了初步证据,证明 STT 在使用 STT-DSE 时可以区分老年人跌倒者和非跌倒者。STT 似乎是评估反应性平衡的有效工具,与 STT-ACE 相比,其 STT-DSE 具有更好的判别和收敛效度,因此值得推荐使用。
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
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
7.40%
发文量
459
审稿时长
15 weeks
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信