Validity and reliability of a simple ‘low-tech’ test for measuring choice stepping reaction time in older people
Objective: To establish the psychometric properties of a simple ‘low-tech’ choice stepping reaction time test (CSRT-M) by investigating its validity and test–retest reliability. Design: Cross-sectional. Setting: Community. Subjects: A total of 169 older people from the control arm of a clinical tria...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Clinical rehabilitation 2016-11, Vol.30 (11), p.1128-1135 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 1135 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 11 |
| container_start_page | 1128 |
| container_title | Clinical rehabilitation |
| container_volume | 30 |
| creator | Delbaere, K Gschwind, YJ Sherrington, C Barraclough, E Garrués-Irisarri, MA Lord, SR |
| description | Objective:
To establish the psychometric properties of a simple ‘low-tech’ choice stepping reaction time test (CSRT-M) by investigating its validity and test–retest reliability.
Design:
Cross-sectional.
Setting:
Community.
Subjects:
A total of 169 older people from the control arm of a clinical trial and a convenience sample of 30 older people.
Main measures:
Demographic, physical, cognitive and prospective falls data were collected in addition to CSRT-M. The CSRT-M time was taken as the total time to complete 20 steps onto four targets printed on a portable rubber mat. Assessment of the original electronic version (CSRT-E) and re-administration of the CSRT-M the next day was done in 30 participants.
Results:
Multivariate regression analysis showed that the CSRT-M time was best explained by leaning balance control, quadriceps strength and cognitive functioning (R2 = 0.44). Performance on the CSRT-M was worse in older participants and participants with a presence of fall risk factors, supporting good discriminant validity. The odds of suffering multiple future falls increased by 74% (odds ratio (OR) = 1.74, 95% CI (confidence interval) = 1.14–2.65, p = 0.010) for each standard deviation increase in CSRT-M, supporting good predictive validity. Criterion validity was confirmed by a strong bivariate correlation between CSRT-M and CSRT-E (0.81, p |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1177/0269215515613422 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1826639552</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sage_id>10.1177_0269215515613422</sage_id><sourcerecordid>4219794841</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c431t-fa085647e42aa77abee1bfcafef4ac1ebc7135ae170af0c2bd3aa97a58a0c7643</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kU9rFjEQxoMo9rV69yQBL17W5u9m36MU_0HBS_W6zGYnbUp2syZZpLd-DP16_STN8laRQk_DML955mEeQl5z9p5zY06YaPeCa811y6US4gnZcWVMwzojn5LdNm62-RF5kfMVY6wTij8nR6LVzMi92ZHyA4IffbmmMI80YfAw-LD10VGg2U9LQHp78zvEX01Be3l784cWzIW6mOiEkNfk5wtqL6O3SHPBZdn6hGCLjzMtfkLqZxrDiIkuGKveS_LMQcj46r4ek--fPp6ffmnOvn3-evrhrLFK8tI4YJ1ulUElAIyBAZEPzoJDp8ByHKzhUgNyw8AxK4ZRAuwN6A6YNa2Sx-TdQXdJ8edaTfeTzxZDgBnjmnveibaVe61FRd8-QK_imubqrlKS1ScqJSvFDpRNMeeErl-SnyBd95z1WyL9w0Tqypt74XWYcPy38DeCCjQHIMMF_nf1McE7VZmWUQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1830215443</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Validity and reliability of a simple ‘low-tech’ test for measuring choice stepping reaction time in older people</title><source>Access via SAGE</source><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA)</source><creator>Delbaere, K ; Gschwind, YJ ; Sherrington, C ; Barraclough, E ; Garrués-Irisarri, MA ; Lord, SR</creator><creatorcontrib>Delbaere, K ; Gschwind, YJ ; Sherrington, C ; Barraclough, E ; Garrués-Irisarri, MA ; Lord, SR</creatorcontrib><description>Objective:
To establish the psychometric properties of a simple ‘low-tech’ choice stepping reaction time test (CSRT-M) by investigating its validity and test–retest reliability.
Design:
Cross-sectional.
Setting:
Community.
Subjects:
A total of 169 older people from the control arm of a clinical trial and a convenience sample of 30 older people.
Main measures:
Demographic, physical, cognitive and prospective falls data were collected in addition to CSRT-M. The CSRT-M time was taken as the total time to complete 20 steps onto four targets printed on a portable rubber mat. Assessment of the original electronic version (CSRT-E) and re-administration of the CSRT-M the next day was done in 30 participants.
Results:
Multivariate regression analysis showed that the CSRT-M time was best explained by leaning balance control, quadriceps strength and cognitive functioning (R2 = 0.44). Performance on the CSRT-M was worse in older participants and participants with a presence of fall risk factors, supporting good discriminant validity. The odds of suffering multiple future falls increased by 74% (odds ratio (OR) = 1.74, 95% CI (confidence interval) = 1.14–2.65, p = 0.010) for each standard deviation increase in CSRT-M, supporting good predictive validity. Criterion validity was confirmed by a strong bivariate correlation between CSRT-M and CSRT-E (0.81, p < 0.001). Test–retest reliability for the CSRT-M was good (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.74, 95% CI = 0.45–0.88, p < 0.001).
Conclusions:
A simple test of unplanned volitional stepping (CSRT-M) has excellent predictive validity for future falls, good inter-day test–retest reliability and excellent criterion validity with respect to the well-validated CSRT-E. The CSRT-M, therefore, may be a useful fall risk screening tool for older people.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0269-2155</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1477-0873</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1177/0269215515613422</identifier><identifier>PMID: 26507397</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>London, England: SAGE Publications</publisher><subject>Accidental Falls - prevention & control ; Aged ; Aged, 80 and over ; Choice Behavior ; Clinical research ; Clinical trials ; Cognitive functioning ; Confidence intervals ; Cross-Sectional Studies ; Deviation ; Discriminant validity ; Exercise Test - methods ; Falls ; Female ; Geriatric Assessment - methods ; Humans ; Independent Living ; Logistic Models ; Male ; Medical screening ; Motor ability ; Multivariate Analysis ; Older people ; Postural Balance ; Predictive validity ; Predictive Value of Tests ; Quadriceps ; Quantitative psychology ; Reaction Time ; Reliability ; Risk assessment ; Risk factors ; Rubber ; Sensation Disorders - diagnosis ; Suffering ; Test-Retest reliability ; Unplanned ; Validation studies ; Validity</subject><ispartof>Clinical rehabilitation, 2016-11, Vol.30 (11), p.1128-1135</ispartof><rights>The Author(s) 2015</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c431t-fa085647e42aa77abee1bfcafef4ac1ebc7135ae170af0c2bd3aa97a58a0c7643</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c431t-fa085647e42aa77abee1bfcafef4ac1ebc7135ae170af0c2bd3aa97a58a0c7643</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0269215515613422$$EPDF$$P50$$Gsage$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0269215515613422$$EHTML$$P50$$Gsage$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,21819,27924,27925,30999,43621,43622</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26507397$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Delbaere, K</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gschwind, YJ</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sherrington, C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Barraclough, E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Garrués-Irisarri, MA</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lord, SR</creatorcontrib><title>Validity and reliability of a simple ‘low-tech’ test for measuring choice stepping reaction time in older people</title><title>Clinical rehabilitation</title><addtitle>Clin Rehabil</addtitle><description>Objective:
To establish the psychometric properties of a simple ‘low-tech’ choice stepping reaction time test (CSRT-M) by investigating its validity and test–retest reliability.
Design:
Cross-sectional.
Setting:
Community.
Subjects:
A total of 169 older people from the control arm of a clinical trial and a convenience sample of 30 older people.
Main measures:
Demographic, physical, cognitive and prospective falls data were collected in addition to CSRT-M. The CSRT-M time was taken as the total time to complete 20 steps onto four targets printed on a portable rubber mat. Assessment of the original electronic version (CSRT-E) and re-administration of the CSRT-M the next day was done in 30 participants.
Results:
Multivariate regression analysis showed that the CSRT-M time was best explained by leaning balance control, quadriceps strength and cognitive functioning (R2 = 0.44). Performance on the CSRT-M was worse in older participants and participants with a presence of fall risk factors, supporting good discriminant validity. The odds of suffering multiple future falls increased by 74% (odds ratio (OR) = 1.74, 95% CI (confidence interval) = 1.14–2.65, p = 0.010) for each standard deviation increase in CSRT-M, supporting good predictive validity. Criterion validity was confirmed by a strong bivariate correlation between CSRT-M and CSRT-E (0.81, p < 0.001). Test–retest reliability for the CSRT-M was good (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.74, 95% CI = 0.45–0.88, p < 0.001).
Conclusions:
A simple test of unplanned volitional stepping (CSRT-M) has excellent predictive validity for future falls, good inter-day test–retest reliability and excellent criterion validity with respect to the well-validated CSRT-E. The CSRT-M, therefore, may be a useful fall risk screening tool for older people.</description><subject>Accidental Falls - prevention & control</subject><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Aged, 80 and over</subject><subject>Choice Behavior</subject><subject>Clinical research</subject><subject>Clinical trials</subject><subject>Cognitive functioning</subject><subject>Confidence intervals</subject><subject>Cross-Sectional Studies</subject><subject>Deviation</subject><subject>Discriminant validity</subject><subject>Exercise Test - methods</subject><subject>Falls</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Geriatric Assessment - methods</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Independent Living</subject><subject>Logistic Models</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Medical screening</subject><subject>Motor ability</subject><subject>Multivariate Analysis</subject><subject>Older people</subject><subject>Postural Balance</subject><subject>Predictive validity</subject><subject>Predictive Value of Tests</subject><subject>Quadriceps</subject><subject>Quantitative psychology</subject><subject>Reaction Time</subject><subject>Reliability</subject><subject>Risk assessment</subject><subject>Risk factors</subject><subject>Rubber</subject><subject>Sensation Disorders - diagnosis</subject><subject>Suffering</subject><subject>Test-Retest reliability</subject><subject>Unplanned</subject><subject>Validation studies</subject><subject>Validity</subject><issn>0269-2155</issn><issn>1477-0873</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2016</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>7QJ</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kU9rFjEQxoMo9rV69yQBL17W5u9m36MU_0HBS_W6zGYnbUp2syZZpLd-DP16_STN8laRQk_DML955mEeQl5z9p5zY06YaPeCa811y6US4gnZcWVMwzojn5LdNm62-RF5kfMVY6wTij8nR6LVzMi92ZHyA4IffbmmMI80YfAw-LD10VGg2U9LQHp78zvEX01Be3l784cWzIW6mOiEkNfk5wtqL6O3SHPBZdn6hGCLjzMtfkLqZxrDiIkuGKveS_LMQcj46r4ek--fPp6ffmnOvn3-evrhrLFK8tI4YJ1ulUElAIyBAZEPzoJDp8ByHKzhUgNyw8AxK4ZRAuwN6A6YNa2Sx-TdQXdJ8edaTfeTzxZDgBnjmnveibaVe61FRd8-QK_imubqrlKS1ScqJSvFDpRNMeeErl-SnyBd95z1WyL9w0Tqypt74XWYcPy38DeCCjQHIMMF_nf1McE7VZmWUQ</recordid><startdate>20161101</startdate><enddate>20161101</enddate><creator>Delbaere, K</creator><creator>Gschwind, YJ</creator><creator>Sherrington, C</creator><creator>Barraclough, E</creator><creator>Garrués-Irisarri, MA</creator><creator>Lord, SR</creator><general>SAGE Publications</general><general>Sage Publications Ltd</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QJ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20161101</creationdate><title>Validity and reliability of a simple ‘low-tech’ test for measuring choice stepping reaction time in older people</title><author>Delbaere, K ; Gschwind, YJ ; Sherrington, C ; Barraclough, E ; Garrués-Irisarri, MA ; Lord, SR</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c431t-fa085647e42aa77abee1bfcafef4ac1ebc7135ae170af0c2bd3aa97a58a0c7643</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2016</creationdate><topic>Accidental Falls - prevention & control</topic><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Aged, 80 and over</topic><topic>Choice Behavior</topic><topic>Clinical research</topic><topic>Clinical trials</topic><topic>Cognitive functioning</topic><topic>Confidence intervals</topic><topic>Cross-Sectional Studies</topic><topic>Deviation</topic><topic>Discriminant validity</topic><topic>Exercise Test - methods</topic><topic>Falls</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Geriatric Assessment - methods</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Independent Living</topic><topic>Logistic Models</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Medical screening</topic><topic>Motor ability</topic><topic>Multivariate Analysis</topic><topic>Older people</topic><topic>Postural Balance</topic><topic>Predictive validity</topic><topic>Predictive Value of Tests</topic><topic>Quadriceps</topic><topic>Quantitative psychology</topic><topic>Reaction Time</topic><topic>Reliability</topic><topic>Risk assessment</topic><topic>Risk factors</topic><topic>Rubber</topic><topic>Sensation Disorders - diagnosis</topic><topic>Suffering</topic><topic>Test-Retest reliability</topic><topic>Unplanned</topic><topic>Validation studies</topic><topic>Validity</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Delbaere, K</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gschwind, YJ</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sherrington, C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Barraclough, E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Garrués-Irisarri, MA</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lord, SR</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Clinical rehabilitation</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Delbaere, K</au><au>Gschwind, YJ</au><au>Sherrington, C</au><au>Barraclough, E</au><au>Garrués-Irisarri, MA</au><au>Lord, SR</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Validity and reliability of a simple ‘low-tech’ test for measuring choice stepping reaction time in older people</atitle><jtitle>Clinical rehabilitation</jtitle><addtitle>Clin Rehabil</addtitle><date>2016-11-01</date><risdate>2016</risdate><volume>30</volume><issue>11</issue><spage>1128</spage><epage>1135</epage><pages>1128-1135</pages><issn>0269-2155</issn><eissn>1477-0873</eissn><abstract>Objective:
To establish the psychometric properties of a simple ‘low-tech’ choice stepping reaction time test (CSRT-M) by investigating its validity and test–retest reliability.
Design:
Cross-sectional.
Setting:
Community.
Subjects:
A total of 169 older people from the control arm of a clinical trial and a convenience sample of 30 older people.
Main measures:
Demographic, physical, cognitive and prospective falls data were collected in addition to CSRT-M. The CSRT-M time was taken as the total time to complete 20 steps onto four targets printed on a portable rubber mat. Assessment of the original electronic version (CSRT-E) and re-administration of the CSRT-M the next day was done in 30 participants.
Results:
Multivariate regression analysis showed that the CSRT-M time was best explained by leaning balance control, quadriceps strength and cognitive functioning (R2 = 0.44). Performance on the CSRT-M was worse in older participants and participants with a presence of fall risk factors, supporting good discriminant validity. The odds of suffering multiple future falls increased by 74% (odds ratio (OR) = 1.74, 95% CI (confidence interval) = 1.14–2.65, p = 0.010) for each standard deviation increase in CSRT-M, supporting good predictive validity. Criterion validity was confirmed by a strong bivariate correlation between CSRT-M and CSRT-E (0.81, p < 0.001). Test–retest reliability for the CSRT-M was good (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.74, 95% CI = 0.45–0.88, p < 0.001).
Conclusions:
A simple test of unplanned volitional stepping (CSRT-M) has excellent predictive validity for future falls, good inter-day test–retest reliability and excellent criterion validity with respect to the well-validated CSRT-E. The CSRT-M, therefore, may be a useful fall risk screening tool for older people.</abstract><cop>London, England</cop><pub>SAGE Publications</pub><pmid>26507397</pmid><doi>10.1177/0269215515613422</doi><tpages>8</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0269-2155 |
| ispartof | Clinical rehabilitation, 2016-11, Vol.30 (11), p.1128-1135 |
| issn | 0269-2155 1477-0873 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1826639552 |
| source | Access via SAGE; MEDLINE; Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA) |
| subjects | Accidental Falls - prevention & control Aged Aged, 80 and over Choice Behavior Clinical research Clinical trials Cognitive functioning Confidence intervals Cross-Sectional Studies Deviation Discriminant validity Exercise Test - methods Falls Female Geriatric Assessment - methods Humans Independent Living Logistic Models Male Medical screening Motor ability Multivariate Analysis Older people Postural Balance Predictive validity Predictive Value of Tests Quadriceps Quantitative psychology Reaction Time Reliability Risk assessment Risk factors Rubber Sensation Disorders - diagnosis Suffering Test-Retest reliability Unplanned Validation studies Validity |
| title | Validity and reliability of a simple ‘low-tech’ test for measuring choice stepping reaction time in older people |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-29T10%3A25%3A58IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Validity%20and%20reliability%20of%20a%20simple%20%E2%80%98low-tech%E2%80%99%20test%20for%20measuring%20choice%20stepping%20reaction%20time%20in%20older%20people&rft.jtitle=Clinical%20rehabilitation&rft.au=Delbaere,%20K&rft.date=2016-11-01&rft.volume=30&rft.issue=11&rft.spage=1128&rft.epage=1135&rft.pages=1128-1135&rft.issn=0269-2155&rft.eissn=1477-0873&rft_id=info:doi/10.1177/0269215515613422&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E4219794841%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1830215443&rft_id=info:pmid/26507397&rft_sage_id=10.1177_0269215515613422&rfr_iscdi=true |