Higueras-Fresnillo S, de la Cámara M A, Esteban-Cornejo I, Rodríguez-Artalejo F, Martinez-Gomez D
1 Department of Physical Education, Sport, and Human Movement, Faculty of Teacher Training and Education, Autonomous University of Madrid, Spain.
2 PROFITH Research Group, Department of Physical Education and Sport, Faculty of Sport Sciences, University of Granada, Spain.
Percept Mot Skills. 2018 Oct;125(5):908-922. doi: 10.1177/0031512518780594. Epub 2018 Aug 8.
Usual gait speed has been shown to have very good reliability and convincing predictive validity for evaluating older adults' gait skills, but its criterion validity is unknown. We examined the criterion validity of the 8-feet (i.e., 2.44 meters) test in a laboratory environment to assess usual gait speed by comparing its results with the Intelligent Device for Energy Expenditure and Activity (IDEEA) monitor. Participants were 200 well-functioning community-dwelling adults aged 65 and older (113 women; 87 men; mean [M] age = 71.8, standard deviation [ SD] = 5.6 years). Participants wore the IDEEA monitor for 48 consecutive hours, and we used the participants' average usual gait speed for the analysis. The Spearman correlation of usual gait speed using both the 8-feet test and IDEEA monitor was moderate and statistically significant (ρ = .364, p < .001). The mean difference between both methods was 0.20 ( SD = 0.27) meters/second, and the corresponding limits of agreement were 0.73 and -0.33 meters/second. There was a small systematic bias when the difference between the two methods was correlated with usual gait speed as measured by the IDEEA (ρ = -.20, p = .011). The perfect agreement (weighted kappa) of both instruments for classifying usual gait speed into tertiles, quartiles, and quintiles was 48.3% ( k = 0.17), 30.9% ( k = 0.23), and 25.4% ( k = 0.29), respectively. Our results indicate that the 8-feet test showed moderate criterion-related validity for evaluating and assessing usual gait speed test in older adults.
通常的步速已被证明在评估老年人的步态技能方面具有非常好的可靠性和令人信服的预测效度,但其效标效度尚不清楚。我们在实验室环境中检验了8英尺(即2.44米)测试的效标效度,通过将其结果与能量消耗和活动智能设备(IDEEA)监测仪进行比较来评估通常的步速。参与者为200名功能良好的65岁及以上社区居住成年人(113名女性;87名男性;平均年龄[M]=71.8岁,标准差[SD]=5.6岁)。参与者连续佩戴IDEEA监测仪48小时,我们使用参与者的平均通常步速进行分析。使用8英尺测试和IDEEA监测仪得出的通常步速的斯皮尔曼相关性为中等且具有统计学意义(ρ=0.364,p<0.001)。两种方法之间的平均差异为0.20(SD=0.27)米/秒,相应的一致性界限为0.73和-0.33米/秒。当两种方法之间的差异与IDEEA测量的通常步速相关时,存在较小的系统偏差(ρ=-0.20,p=0.011)。两种仪器将通常步速分为三分位数、四分位数和五分位数的完全一致性(加权kappa)分别为48.3%(k=0.17)、30.9%(k=0.23)和25.4%(k=0.29)。我们的结果表明,8英尺测试在评估老年人的通常步速测试方面显示出中等的效标相关效度。