Timed up and go and 30-S chair-stand tests applied via video call are reliable and provide results similar to face-to-face assessment of older adults with different musculoskeletal conditions

Background

Remote assessments are promising for coping with adverse situations, such as those imposed by the COVID-19 pandemic. Measurement properties must be specific to the characteristics of the population and the context in which the instruments are used.

Purpose

s: 1) To evaluate the parallel reliability of the timed up and go (TUG) and 30-s chair-stand test (30CST) performed in-person and remotely and 2) to analyze the intra-rater, inter-rater, and test-retest reliability of these tests assessed remotely in older adults with different musculoskeletal conditions.

Methods

The sample included 50 older adults. Parallel reliability was determined by comparing in-person and remote data. Bland-Altman plots displayed differences between tests (TUG and 30CST) performed in-person and remotely, showing the mean scores of each participant. The intra-rater, inter-rater, and test-retest reliability for remote assessments were analyzed using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) with a 95% confidence interval.

Results

Parallel reliability was high between in-person and remote assessments (ICC >0.82). Intra-rater, inter-rater, and test-retest reliability were very high for remote assessments (ICC >0.90). The minimal detectable change for the remote assessment of TUG (MDC <1.95) and 30CST (MDC <2.39) indicated adequate sensitivity. In both tests, the standard error of the measurement was acceptable (SEM% < 10%) and Bland-Altman limits of agreement were solid.

Conclusions

The remote assessment of TUG and 30CST in older adults with different musculoskeletal conditions was as reliable as those performed in person and may be considered when in-person assessments are impossible.