Neuroscience Research Australia, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2011 Jun;92(6):947-53. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2011.01.012. Epub 2011 May 6.
To determine whether a dance mat test of choice stepping reaction time (CSRT) is reliable and can detect differences in fall risk in older adults.
Randomized order, crossover comparison.
Balance laboratory, medical research institute, and retirement village.
Older (mean age, 78.87±5.90y; range, 65-90y) independent-living people (N=47) able to walk in place without assistance.
Not applicable.
Reaction (RT), movement, and response times of dance pad--based stepping tests, Physiological Profile Assessment (PPA) score, Digit Symbol Substitution Test (DSST) score, time to complete the Trail Making Test (TMT) A+B, Fall Efficacy Scale International (FES-I) score, Activities-specific Balance Confidence (ABC) Scale score, and Incidental and Planned Exercise Questionnaire (IPEQ) incidental IPEQ activity subscore.
Test-retest reliability of the dance mat CSRT response time was high (intraclass correlation coefficient model 3,k=.90; 95% confidence interval [CI], .82-.94; P<.001) and correlated highly with the existing laboratory-based measure (r=.86; 95% CI, .75-.92; P<.001). Concurrent validity was shown by significant correlations between response time and measures of fall risk (PPA: r=.42; 95% CI, .15-.63; P<.01; TMT A: r=.61; 95% CI, .39-.77; TMT B: r=.55; 95% CI, .31-.72; DSST: r=-.53; 95% CI, -.71 to -.28; P<.001; FES-I: Spearman ρ=.50; 95% CI, .25-.69; ABC Scale: Spearman ρ=-.58; 95% CI, -.74 to -.35; P<.01). Participants with moderate/high fall-risk scores (PPA score >1) had significantly slower response times than people with low/mild fall-risk scores (PPA score <1) at 1146±182 and 1010±132ms, respectively (P=.005), and multiple fallers and single/nonfallers showed significant differences in RT (883±137 vs 770±100ms; P=.009) and response time (1180±195 vs 1031±145ms; P=0.017).
The new dance mat device is a valid and reliable tool for assessing stepping ability and fall risk in older community-dwelling people. Because it is highly portable, it can be used in clinic settings and the homes of older people as both an assessment and training device.
确定选择踏反应时间（CSRT）的舞蹈垫测试是否可靠，并且能否检测老年人跌倒风险的差异。
随机顺序，交叉比较。
平衡实验室、医学研究所和退休村。
能够独立在原地行走的老年（平均年龄，78.87±5.90 岁；范围，65-90 岁）独立生活者（N=47）。
不适用。
基于舞蹈垫的踏测试的反应（RT）、运动和响应时间、生理概况评估（PPA）评分、数字符号替换测试（DSST）评分、完成 Trail Making Test（TMT）A+B 的时间、跌倒效能国际量表（FES-I）评分、活动特定平衡信心量表（ABC）评分以及偶然和计划锻炼问卷（IPEQ）偶然 IPEQ 活动分项。
舞蹈垫 CSRT 响应时间的测试-重测可靠性很高（组内相关系数模型 3，k=.90；95%置信区间[CI]，.82-.94；P<.001），与现有的基于实验室的测量高度相关（r=.86；95% CI，.75-.92；P<.001）。响应时间与跌倒风险测量之间存在显著相关性，表明具有同时效度（PPA：r=.42；95% CI，.15-.63；P<.01；TMT A：r=.61；95% CI，.39-.77；TMT B：r=.55；95% CI，.31-.72；DSST：r=-.53；95% CI，-.71 至-.28；P<.001；FES-I：Spearman ρ=.50；95% CI，.25-.69；ABC 量表：Spearman ρ=-.58；95% CI，-.74 至-.35；P<.01）。具有中度/高度跌倒风险评分（PPA 评分>1）的参与者的反应时间明显慢于具有低/轻度跌倒风险评分（PPA 评分<1）的参与者（分别为 1146±182 和 1010±132ms；P=.005），并且多次跌倒者和单次/非跌倒者的 RT（883±137 与 770±100ms；P=.009）和反应时间（1180±195 与 1031±145ms；P=0.017）存在显著差异。
新的舞蹈垫设备是一种可靠的工具，可用于评估社区居住的老年人的踏步能力和跌倒风险。由于它具有高度的便携性，因此可作为评估和训练设备在诊所环境和老年人的家中使用。
