Reliability and Construct Validity of the Six-Minute Step Test in Individuals With Non-Specific Chronic Low Back Pain.

IF 1.7 Q3 REHABILITATION
Francisco Basílio da Silva-Júnior, André Pontes-Silva, Yane Pelicer-Marques, Sabrina Marinho Coutinho, Marco Fabrício Dias-Peixoto, Kassiana de Araujo Pessôa, Andréa Dias Reis, Cristiano Teixeira Mostarda, Almir Vieira Dibai-Filho, Flávio de Oliveira Pires
{"title":"Reliability and Construct Validity of the Six-Minute Step Test in Individuals With Non-Specific Chronic Low Back Pain.","authors":"Francisco Basílio da Silva-Júnior, André Pontes-Silva, Yane Pelicer-Marques, Sabrina Marinho Coutinho, Marco Fabrício Dias-Peixoto, Kassiana de Araujo Pessôa, Andréa Dias Reis, Cristiano Teixeira Mostarda, Almir Vieira Dibai-Filho, Flávio de Oliveira Pires","doi":"10.1002/pri.70295","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and purpose: </strong>The six-minute step test (6MST) is a practical, field-based assessment that may provide useful information about stepping performance in individuals with non-specific chronic low back pain (NSCLBP). However, evidence regarding its measurement properties in this population is limited. The aim of this study was to evaluate the inter-rater reliability and construct validity of the 6MST in individuals with NSCLBP.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a cross-sectional psychometric study to evaluate the 6MST's inter-rater reliability and construct validity using a known-groups approach. Thirty-one individuals with NSCLBP and 31 age- and sex-matched healthy controls completed the 6MST. Two blinded raters administered the test independently on separate occasions 7 days apart. We assessed inter-rater reliability using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), standard error of measurement (SEM), minimal detectable change (MDC), and Bland-Altman analysis. Construct validity was examined by comparing 6MST performance between groups using hypothesis testing and effect sizes (Cohen's d). Secondary outcomes included heart rate responses, perceived exertion, pain intensity, disability, pain catastrophizing, and kinesiophobia.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The 6MST demonstrated excellent inter-rater reliability, with ICCs of 0.915 (95% CI: 0.83-0.96) for the NSCLBP group and 0.973 (95% CI: 0.94-0.99) for controls. SEM and MDC values were 6 and 17 steps in the NSCLBP group and 3 and 8 steps in the controls, respectively. Bland-Altman analyses revealed good agreement and no evidence of proportional bias. Construct validity was supported by significantly lower performance in the NSCLBP group compared with the control group (mean differences: 37 and 33 steps for raters 1 and 2, respectively, both with p values less than 0.001), with very large effect sizes (Cohen's d = 1.91 and 1.76). Individuals with NSCLBP showed lower attainment of the predefined target heart rate and greater increases in pain intensity following the test, despite similar perceived exertion.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>The 6MST demonstrated excellent inter-rater reliability and satisfactory construct validity for assessing stepping performance in individuals with NSCLBP. Compared with healthy controls, individuals with NSCLBP completed fewer steps, were less likely to reach the predefined target heart rate during testing, and reported greater increases in pain intensity despite similar perceived exertion. These findings support the use of the 6MST as a practical, low-cost, performance-based assessment of stepping performance in this population. However, the observed heart rate responses should not be interpreted as evidence of differences in exercise tolerance, aerobic capacity, or cardiopulmonary function.</p>","PeriodicalId":47243,"journal":{"name":"Physiotherapy Research International","volume":"31 3","pages":"e70295"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2026-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13377665/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Physiotherapy Research International","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/pri.70295","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background and purpose: The six-minute step test (6MST) is a practical, field-based assessment that may provide useful information about stepping performance in individuals with non-specific chronic low back pain (NSCLBP). However, evidence regarding its measurement properties in this population is limited. The aim of this study was to evaluate the inter-rater reliability and construct validity of the 6MST in individuals with NSCLBP.

Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional psychometric study to evaluate the 6MST's inter-rater reliability and construct validity using a known-groups approach. Thirty-one individuals with NSCLBP and 31 age- and sex-matched healthy controls completed the 6MST. Two blinded raters administered the test independently on separate occasions 7 days apart. We assessed inter-rater reliability using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), standard error of measurement (SEM), minimal detectable change (MDC), and Bland-Altman analysis. Construct validity was examined by comparing 6MST performance between groups using hypothesis testing and effect sizes (Cohen's d). Secondary outcomes included heart rate responses, perceived exertion, pain intensity, disability, pain catastrophizing, and kinesiophobia.

Results: The 6MST demonstrated excellent inter-rater reliability, with ICCs of 0.915 (95% CI: 0.83-0.96) for the NSCLBP group and 0.973 (95% CI: 0.94-0.99) for controls. SEM and MDC values were 6 and 17 steps in the NSCLBP group and 3 and 8 steps in the controls, respectively. Bland-Altman analyses revealed good agreement and no evidence of proportional bias. Construct validity was supported by significantly lower performance in the NSCLBP group compared with the control group (mean differences: 37 and 33 steps for raters 1 and 2, respectively, both with p values less than 0.001), with very large effect sizes (Cohen's d = 1.91 and 1.76). Individuals with NSCLBP showed lower attainment of the predefined target heart rate and greater increases in pain intensity following the test, despite similar perceived exertion.

Discussion: The 6MST demonstrated excellent inter-rater reliability and satisfactory construct validity for assessing stepping performance in individuals with NSCLBP. Compared with healthy controls, individuals with NSCLBP completed fewer steps, were less likely to reach the predefined target heart rate during testing, and reported greater increases in pain intensity despite similar perceived exertion. These findings support the use of the 6MST as a practical, low-cost, performance-based assessment of stepping performance in this population. However, the observed heart rate responses should not be interpreted as evidence of differences in exercise tolerance, aerobic capacity, or cardiopulmonary function.

非特异性慢性腰痛患者6分钟步测的信度和结构效度。
背景和目的:6分钟步速测试(6MST)是一种实用的、基于现场的评估方法,可以为非特异性慢性腰痛(NSCLBP)患者的步速表现提供有用的信息。然而,关于其在该人群中的测量特性的证据是有限的。本研究的目的是评估6MST在NSCLBP患者中的信度和结构效度。方法:采用横断面心理测量法,采用已知群体法对6MST量表的量表间信度和结构效度进行评估。31名NSCLBP患者和31名年龄和性别匹配的健康对照者完成了6MST。两名盲法评分者在相隔7天的不同场合独立进行测试。我们使用类内相关系数(ICC)、测量标准误差(SEM)、最小可检测变化(MDC)和Bland-Altman分析来评估评分者之间的信度。通过使用假设检验和效应量(Cohen’s d)比较各组之间的6MST表现来检验结构效度。次要结局包括心率反应、感知劳累、疼痛强度、残疾、疼痛灾难化和运动恐惧症。结果:6MST表现出优异的评分间信度,NSCLBP组的ICCs为0.915 (95% CI: 0.83-0.96),对照组的ICCs为0.973 (95% CI: 0.94-0.99)。NSCLBP组的SEM和MDC值分别为6和17步,对照组为3和8步。Bland-Altman分析显示了良好的一致性,没有证据表明比例偏差。与对照组相比,NSCLBP组的表现明显较低(评分者1和2的平均差异分别为37和33步,p值均小于0.001),且效应量非常大(Cohen’s d = 1.91和1.76),从而支持了结构效度。患有NSCLBP的个体在测试后表现出较低的预定目标心率和更大的疼痛强度增加,尽管感知到类似的努力。讨论:6MST在评估NSCLBP患者的步进表现方面表现出优异的量表间信度和令人满意的结构效度。与健康对照组相比,患有NSCLBP的个体完成的步数更少,在测试中达到预定目标心率的可能性更小,尽管感觉类似的运动,但报告的疼痛强度增加更大。这些发现支持使用6MST作为一种实用、低成本、基于性能的评估该人群步进性能的方法。然而,观察到的心率反应不应被解释为运动耐量、有氧能力或心肺功能差异的证据。
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
3.30
自引率
5.90%
发文量
53
期刊介绍: Physiotherapy Research International is an international peer reviewed journal dedicated to the exchange of knowledge that is directly relevant to specialist areas of physiotherapy theory, practice, and research. Our aim is to promote a high level of scholarship and build on the current evidence base to inform the advancement of the physiotherapy profession. We publish original research on a wide range of topics e.g. Primary research testing new physiotherapy treatments; methodological research; measurement and outcome research and qualitative research of interest to researchers, clinicians and educators. Further, we aim to publish high quality papers that represent the range of cultures and settings where physiotherapy services are delivered. We attract a wide readership from physiotherapists and others working in diverse clinical and academic settings. We aim to promote an international debate amongst the profession about current best evidence based practice. Papers are directed primarily towards the physiotherapy profession, but can be relevant to a wide range of professional groups. The growth of interdisciplinary research is also key to our aims and scope, and we encourage relevant submissions from other professional groups. The journal actively encourages submissions which utilise a breadth of different methodologies and research designs to facilitate addressing key questions related to the physiotherapy practice. PRI seeks to encourage good quality topical debates on a range of relevant issues and promote critical reflection on decision making and implementation of physiotherapy interventions.
×
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
小红书