Brain Plasticity Lab, Department of Physical Therapy, College of Applied Health Sciences University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA.
Brain Plasticity Lab, Department of Physical Therapy, College of Applied Health Sciences University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA.
Clin Biomech (Bristol). 2020 Dec;80:105197. doi: 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2020.105197. Epub 2020 Oct 10.
Walking speed measurements are clinically important, but varying test procedures may influence measurements and impair clinical utility. This study assessed the concurrent validity of walking speed in individuals with chronic stroke measured during the 10-m walk test with variations in 1) the presence of an electronic mat, 2) the speed measurement device, and 3) the measurement distance relative to the total test distance.
Twenty-five individuals with chronic stroke performed walking tests at comfortable and maximal walking speeds under three conditions: 1) 10-m walk test (without electronic mat) measured by stopwatch, 2) 10-m walk test (partially over an electronic mat) measured by software, and 3) 10-m walk test (partially over an electronic mat) measured by stopwatch. Analyses of systematic bias, proportional bias, and absolute agreement were performed to determine concurrent validity between conditions.
Walking speeds were not different between measurements (P ≥ 0.11), except maximal walking speed was faster when speed was measured with software vs. stopwatch (P = 0.002). Absolute agreement between measurements was excellent (ICC ≥ 0.97, P < 0.001). There was proportional bias between software vs. stopwatch (R ≥ 0.19, P ≤ 0.03) and between tests with vs. without the electronic mat (R = 0.27, P = 0.008). Comparisons between conditions revealed that walking speed and concurrent validity may be influenced by walking test distance, presence of an electronic mat, speed measurement device, and relative measurement distance.
Walking test procedures influence walking speed and concurrent validity between measurements. Waking test procedures should be as similar as possible with normative data or between repeated measurements to optimize validity.
行走速度的测量在临床上很重要,但不同的测试程序可能会影响测量结果并降低临床实用性。本研究评估了慢性脑卒中患者在 10 米步行测试中行走速度的同时效度,该测试在以下三个方面存在变化:1)电子垫的存在,2)速度测量设备,3)与总测试距离相比的测量距离。
25 名慢性脑卒中患者在三种条件下以舒适和最大步行速度进行步行测试:1)10 米步行测试(无电子垫),由秒表测量,2)10 米步行测试(部分在电子垫上),由软件测量,3)10 米步行测试(部分在电子垫上),由秒表测量。进行系统偏差、比例偏差和绝对一致性分析,以确定条件之间的同时效度。
测量之间的行走速度没有差异(P≥0.11),除了最大步行速度当速度用软件测量时比用秒表测量时更快(P=0.002)。测量之间的绝对一致性非常好(ICC≥0.97,P<0.001)。软件与秒表之间存在比例偏差(R≥0.19,P≤0.03),以及有电子垫与无电子垫的测试之间存在比例偏差(R=0.27,P=0.008)。条件之间的比较表明,行走测试距离、电子垫的存在、速度测量设备以及相对测量距离可能会影响行走速度和测量之间的同时效度。
行走测试程序会影响行走速度和测量之间的同时效度。行走测试程序应尽可能与标准数据或重复测量保持一致,以优化有效性。