The psychometric properties and clinical utility of measures of walking and mobility in neurological conditions: A systematic review

Clinical Rehabilitation

Volumn 23, Issue 11, 2009, Pages 1018-1033

  Tyson, Sarah ^a   Connell, Louise ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SALFORD   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF NOTTINGHAM   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AMBULATION INDEX; BODY EQUILIBRIUM; CLINICAL ASSESSMENT TOOL; COMMUNITY BALANCE AND MOBILITY SCALE; CONCURRENT VALIDITY; CRITERION RELATED VALIDITY; DYNAMIC GAIT INDEX; EMORY FUNCTIONAL AMBULATION PROFILE; FIVE MINUTE WALK TEST; FUNCTIONAL AMBULATION CATEGORY; FUNCTIONAL MOBILITY ASSESSMENT TOOL; GAIT AND BALANCE SCALE; GAIT DISORDER; HIGH LEVEL MOBILITY ASSESSMENT TOOL; INTERRATER RELIABILITY; MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS WALKING SCALE; NEUROLOGIC DISEASE; PARKINSON ACTIVITY SCALE; PATIENT MOBILITY; PSYCHOMETRY; RATING SCALE; REVIEW; RIVERMEAD MOBILITY INDEX; SIX MINUTE WALK TEST; STEP ACTIVITY MONITORING; TEN MINUTE WALK TEST; TEST RETEST RELIABILITY; TIMED UP AND GO TEST; WALKING;

DISABILITY EVALUATION; HUMANS; MOBILITY LIMITATION; NERVOUS SYSTEM DISEASES; OBSERVER VARIATION; PSYCHOMETRICS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; WALKING;

EID: 71049181796     PISSN: 02692155     EISSN: 14770873     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0269215509339004     Document Type: Review

References (102)

1. Chiou I., Burnett C. Values of activities of daily living. Asurvey of stroke patients and their home therapists. Phys Ther 1985; 65: 901-906.
2. Bohannon R., Andrews A., Smith M. Rehabilitation goals of patients with hemiplegia. Int J Rehabil Res 1988; 11: 181-83.
3. Ballinger C., Ashburn A., Low JPR Unpacking theblack box of therapy - a pilot study to describeoccupational therapy and physiotherapy interventions forpeople with stroke. Clin Rehabil 1999; 13: 301-309.
4. Department of Health Long-term Conditions National Services Framework Team. National Services Framework for Long-term Conditions. London, Department of Health, 2005.
5. Greenhalgh J., Tyson S., Long A., Flynn R. How do multidisciplinary teams use clinical outcome measures in clinical practice? Paper presented at the Society for Research in Rehabilitation Summer Meeting 2006, London, 2006.
6. Grimmer K., Bialocerkowski A., Kumar SSM. Implementing evidence in clinical practice: The therapies dilemma. Physiotherapy 2004; 90: 189-94.
7. National Audit Office. Reducing brain damage: Faster access to better stroke care. London, National Audit Office, 2005.
8. Pollock A., Legg L., Langhorne PCS. Barriers to achieving evidence-based stroke rehabilitation. Clin Rehabil 2000; 14: 611-17.
9. Tyson S., Watson A., Moss S. et al. Development of a framework for the evidence-based choice of outcome measures in neurological physiotherapy. Disabil Rehabil 2008; 30: 142-49.
10. World Health Organization. ICF - introduction. The International Classification of Functioning Disability and Health. Geneva, WHO, 2001.
11. Tyson S., Connell L. on behalf of the GMOM project steering group. How to measure balance activity in clinical practice? A systematic review of the psychometric properties and clinical utility of measurement tools for neurological conditions. Clin Rehabil 2009 (in press).
12. van Loo MA, Moseley AM, Bosman JM, de Bie RA, Hassett L. Test-re-test reliability of walking speed, step length and step width measurement after traumatic brain injury: A pilot study. Brain Inj 2004; 18: 1041-48.
13. Holden MK, Gill KM, Magliozzi MR Gait assessment for neurologically impaired patients: Standards for outcome assessment. Phys Ther 1986; 66: 1530-39.
14. Motl RW, McAuley E., Snook EM, Scott JA Accuracy of two electronic pedometers for measuring steps taken under controlled conditions among ambulatory individuals with multiple sclerosis. Multiple Sclerosis 2005; 11: 343-45.
15. Turnbull GI, Wall JC The development of a system for the clinical assessment of gait following a stroke. Physiotherapy 1985; 71: 294-98.
16. Pizzi A., Carlucci G., Falsini C., Lunghi F., Verdesca S., Grippo A. Gait in hemiplegia: Evaluation of clinical features with the Wisconsin Gait Scale. J Rehabil Med 2007; 39: 170-74.
17. Evans MD, Goldie PA, Hill KD Systematic and random error in repeated measurements of temporal and distance parameters of gait after stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1997; 78: 725-29.
18. Pomeroy VM, Chambers SH, Giakas G., Bland M. Reliability of measurement of tempo-spatial parameters of gait after stroke using GaitMat II. Clin Rehabil 2004; 18: 222-27.
19. Chien S-L., Lin S-Z., Liang C-C. et al. The efficacy of quantitative gait analysis by the GAITRite system in evaluation of parkinsonian bradykinesia. Parkinsonism Relat Disord 2006; 12: 438-42.
20. Titianova EB, Mateev PS, Peurala SH, Sivenius J., Tarkka IM Footprint peak time and functional ambulation profile reflect the potential for hemiparetic gait recovery. Brain Inj 2005; 19: 623-31.
21. Salarian A., Russmann H., Vingerhoets FJG et al. Gait assessment in Parkinson's disease: Toward an ambulatory system for long-term monitoring. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 2004; 51: 1434-43.
22. McGinley JL, Morris ME, Greenwood KM, Goldie PA, Olney SJ Accuracy of clinical observations of push-off during gait after stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2006; 87: 779-85.
23. Simondson JA, Goldie P., Greenwood KM The Mobility Scale for Acute Stroke Patients: Concurrent validity. Clin Rehabil 2003; 17: 558-64.
24. Hughes KA, Bell FA Visual assessment of hemiplegic gait following stroke: Pilot study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1994; 75: 1100-107.
25. Nieuwenhuis MM, Van Tongeren H., Sorensen PS, Ravnborg M. The six spot step test: A new measurement for walking ability in multiple sclerosis. Multiple Sclerosis 2006; 12: 495-500.
26. Dion L., Malouin F., McFadyen B., Richards CL Assessing mobility and locomotor coordination after stroke with the rise-to-walk task. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2003; 17: 83-92.
27. Gray DB, Hollingsworth HH, Stark SL, Morgan KA Participation survey/ mobility: Psychometric properties of a measure of participation for people with mobility impairments and limitations. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2006; 87: 189-97.
28. Behrman AL, Light KE, Miller GM Sensitivity of the Tinetti Gait Assessment for detecting change in individuals with Parkinson's disease. Clin Rehabil 2002; 16: 399-405.
29. Perry J., Garrett M., Gronley JK, Mulroy SJ Classification of walking handicap in the stroke population. Stroke 1995; 26: 982-89.
30. Caty GD, Arnould C., Stoquart GG, Thonnard J-L., Lejeune TM ABILOCO: A Rasch-built 13-item questionnaire to assess locomotion ability in stroke patients. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2008; 89: 284-90.
31. Lord S., Halligan P., Wade D. Visual gait analysis: The development of a clinical assessment and scale. Clin Rehabil 1998; 12: 107-19.
32. Rossier P., Wade DT Validity and reliability comparison of 4 mobility measures in patients presenting with neurologic impairment. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2001; 82: 9-13.
33. McIntosh L., Woronuk J., May L., Whitridge M., Elton-Smith G. Development of the Glenrose Ambulation Rating (GAR): Validity and inter-rater reliability. J Rehabil Outcomes Meas 1999; 3: 1-11.
34. English CK, Hillier SL, Stiller K., Warden-Flood A. The sensitivity of three commonly used outcome measures to detect change amongst patients receiving inpatient rehabilitation following stroke. Clin Rehabil 2006; 20: 52-55.
35. Tyson SF Measurement error in functional balance and mobility tests for people with stroke: What are the sources of error and what is the best way to minimize error? Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2007; 21: 46.
36. Flansbjer U-B., Holmback AM, Downham D., Patten C., Lexell J. Reliability of gait performance tests in men and women with hemiparesis after stroke. J Rehabil Med 2005; 37: 75-82.
37. Green J., Forster A., Young J. Reliability of gait speed measured by a timed walking test in patients one year after stroke. Clin Rehabil 2002; 16: 306-14.
38. Watson MJ Refining the ten-metre walking test for use with neurologically impaired people. Physiotherapy 2002; 88: 386-97.
39. Nilsagard Y., Lundholm C., Gunnarsson L., Denison E. Clinical relevance using timed walk tests and timed up and go testing in persons with multiple sclerosis. Physiother Res Int 2007; 12: 105-14.
40. Graham JE, Ostir GV, Kuo YF, Fisher SR, Ottenbacher KJ Relationship between test methodology and mean velocity in timed walk tests: A review. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2008; 89: 865-72.
41. Kollen B., Kwakkel G., Lindeman E. Hemiplegic gait after stroke: Is measurement of maximum speed required? Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2006; 87: 358-63.
42. Maeda A., Yuasa T., Nakamura K., Higuchi S., Motohashi Y. Physical performance tests after stroke: Reliability and validity. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2000; 79: 519-25.
43. Taylor D., Stretton CM, Mudge S., Garrett N. Does clinic-measured gait speed differ from gait speed measured in the community in people with stroke? Clin Rehabil 2006; 20: 438-44.
44. Moseley AM, Lanzarone S., Bosman JM et al. Ecological validity of walking speed assessment after traumatic brain injury: A pilot study. J Head Trauma Rehabil 2004; 19: 341-48.
45. Steffen T., Seney M. Test-retest reliability and minimal detectable change on balance and ambulation tests, the 36-item short-form health survey, and the unified Parkinson disease rating scale in people with parkinsonism. Phys Ther 2008; 88: 733-46.
46. Kosak M., Smith T. Comparison of the 2-, 6-, and 12-minute walk tests in patients with stroke. J Rehabil Res Dev 2005; 42: 103-107.
47. van Loo MA, Moseley AM, Bosman JM, de Bie RA, Hassett L. Inter-rater reliability and concurrent validity of step length and step width measurement after traumatic brain injury. Disabil Rehabil 2003; 25: 1195-200.
48. Thomas M., Jankovic J., Suteerawattananon M. et al. Clinical gait and balance scale (GABS): Validation and utilization. J Neurol Sci 2004; 217: 89-99.
49. Wolf SL, Catlin PA, Gage K., Gurucharri K., Robertson R., Stephen K. Establishing the reliability and validity of measurements of walking time using the Emory Functional Ambulation Profile. Phys Ther 1999; 79: 1122-33.
50. Liaw L-J., Hsieh C-L., Lo S-K., Lee S., Huang M-H., Lin J-H. Psychometric properties of the modified Emory Functional Ambulation Profile in stroke patients. Clin Rehabil 2006; 20: 429-37.
51. Holden MK, Gill KM, Magliozzi MR, Nathan J., Piehl-Baker L. Clinical gait assessment in the neurologically impaired. Reliability and meaning-fulness. Phys Ther 1984; 64: 35-40.
52. Coleman K., Smith D., Boone D., Joseph A., del Aguila M. Step activity monitor: Long-term, continuous recording of ambulatory function. J Rehabil Res Dev 1999; 36: 8-18.
53. Baer GD, Smith MT, Rowe PJ, Masterton L. Establishing the reliability of mobility milestones as an outcome measure for stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2003; 84: 977-81.
54. Smith MT, Baer GD Achievement of simple mobility milestones after stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1999; 80: 442-47.
55. Podsiadlo D., Richardson S. The timed up and go. A test of basic functional mobility for frail elderly persons. J Am Geriatr Soc 1991; 39: 142.
56. Williams G., Robertson V., Greenwood K., Goldie P., Morris ME The high-level mobility assessment tool (HiMAT) for traumatic brain injury. Part 1: Item generation. Brain Inj 2005; 19: 925-32.
57. Williams GP, Robertson V., Greenwood KM, Goldie PA, Morris ME The high-level mobility assessment tool (HiMAT) for traumatic brain injury. Part 2: Content validity and discriminability. Brain Inj 2005; 19: 833-43.
58. McConvey J., Bennett SE Reliability of the Dynamic Gait Index in individuals with multiple sclerosis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2005; 86: 130-33.
59. Hobart JC, Riazi A., Lamping DL, Fitzpatrick R., Thompson AJ Measuring the impact of MS on walking ability: The 12-Item MS Walking Scale (MSWS-12). Neurology 2003; 60: 31-36.
60. Howe JA, Inness EL, Venturini A., Williams JI, Verrier MC The Community Balance and Mobility Scale-a balance measure for individuals with traumatic brain injury. Clin Rehabil 2006; 20: 885-95.
61. Collen FM, Wade DT, Robb GF, Bradshaw CM The Rivermead Mobility Index: A further development of the Rivermead Motor Assessment. Int Disabil Stud 1991; 13: 50-54.
62. Lincoln N., Leadbetter D. Assessment of motor function in stroke function. Physiotherapy 1979; 65: 48-51.
63. Antonucci G., Aprile T., Paolucci S. Rasch analysis of the Rivermead Mobility Index: A study using mobility measures of first-stroke inpatients. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2002; 83: 1442-49.
64. Lennon S., Johnson L. The modified rivermead mobility index: Validity and reliability. Disabil Rehabil 2000; 22: 833-39.
65. Nieuwboer A., De Weerdt W., Dom R., Bogaerts K., Nuyens G. Development of an activity scale for individuals with advanced Parkinson disease: reliability and 'on-off' variability. Phys Ther 2000; 80: 1087-96.
66. Fahn S, Elton R. Committee. UD. Unified Parkinson's disease rating scale. In Fahn SMC, Calne DB, Goldstein M. eds. Recent developments in Parkinson's disease. Florham Park, NJ, Macmillan, 1987, 153-63.
67. Badke MB, Di Fabio RP, Leonard E., Margolis M., Franke T. Reliability of a functional mobility assessment tool with application to neurologically impaired patients: A preliminary report. Physiother Can 1993; 45: 15-20.
68. Francis D., Bain P., Swan A., Hughes R. An assessment of disability rating scales used in multiple sclerosis. Arch Neurol 1991; 48: 299-301.
69. Stephens JM, Goldie PA Walking speed on parquetry and carpet after stroke: Effect of surface and retest reliability. Clin Rehabil 1999; 13: 171-81.
70. Atkinson G., Neville A. Statistical methods for assessing measurement error (reliability) in variables relevant to sports medicine. Sports Med 1998; 26: 217-38.
71. Schmitt JS, Di Fabio RP Reliable change and minimum important difference (MID) proportions facilitated group responsiveness comparisons using individual threshold criteria. J Clin Epidemiol 2000; 57: 1008-18.
72. Hébert R., Spiegelhalter DJ, Brayne C. Setting the minimal metrically detectable change on disability rating scales. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1997; 78: 1305-308.
73. Beaton DE, Boers M., Wells GA Many faces of the minimal clinically important difference (MCID): A literature review and directions for future research. Curr Opin Rheumatol 2002; 14: 109-14.
74. Lim Liik, van Wegen EEH, de Goede CJT et al. Measuring gait and gait-related activities in Parkinson's patients own home environment: A reliability, responsiveness and feasibility study. Parkinsonism Relat Disord 2005; 11: 19-24.
75. Fulk GD, Echternach JL Test-retest reliability and minimal detectable change of gait speed in individuals undergoing rehabilitation after stroke. J Neurol Phys Ther 2008; 32: 8-13.
76. Donovan K., Lord SE, McNaughton HK, Weatherall M. Mobility beyond the clinic: The effect of environment on gait and its measurement in community-ambulant stroke survivors. Clin Rehabil 2008; 22: 556-63.
77. Bao L., Intille S. Activity recognition from user-annotated acceleration data. Pervasive Computing, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 2004; 3001: 1-17.
78. Parkka J., Ermes M., Korpipaa P., Mantyjarvi J., Peltola J., Korhonen I. Activity classification using realistic data from wearable sensors. IEEE Trans Inf Technol Biomed 2006; 10: 119-28.
79. Najafi B., Aminian K., Paraschiv-Ionescu A., Loew F., Bula C., Robert P. Ambulatory system for human motion analysis using a kinematic sensor: monitoring of daily physical activity in the elderly. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 2003; 50: 711-23.
80. Tyson S., DeSouza L. Reliability and validity of functional balance tests post-stroke. Clin Rehabil 2004; 18: 916-23.
81. Wade DT, Wood VA, Heller A., Maggs J., Langton Hewer R. Walking after stroke. Measurement and recovery over the first 3 months. Scand J Rehabil Med 1987; 19: 25-30.
82. van Loo MA, Moseley AM, Bosman JM, de Bie RA, Hassett L. Inter-rater reliability and concurrent validity of walking speed measurement after traumatic brain injury. Clin Rehabil 2003; 17: 775-79.
83. Vos-Vromans D., de Bie R., Erdmann P., van Meeteren N. The responsiveness of the Ten-Meter Walking Test and other measures in patients with hemiparesis in the acute phase. Physiother Theory Pract 2005; 21: 173-80.
84. Mossberg KA Reliability of a timed walk test in persons with acquired brain injury. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2003; 82: 385-90; quiz 91-92. 385-90;
85. Paltamaa J., West H., Sarasoja T., Wikstrom J., Malkia E. Reliability of physical functioning measures in ambulatory subjects with MS. [erratum appears in Physiother Res Int 2006; 11: 123]. Physiother Res Int 2005; 10: 93-109.
86. Fulk GD, Echternach JL, Nof L., O'Sullivan S. Clinometric properties of the six-minute walk test in individuals undergoing rehabilitation poststroke. Physiother Theory Pract 2008; 24: 195-204.
87. Baer HR, Wolf SL Modified Emory Functional Ambulation Profile: An outcome measure for the rehabilitation of poststroke gait dysfunction. Stroke 2001; 32: 973-79.
88. Viosca E., Martinez JL, Almagro PL, Gracia A., Gonzalez C. Proposal and validation of a new functional ambulation classification scale for clinical use. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2005; 86: 1234-38.
89. Cunha IT, Lim PAC, Henson H., Monga T., Qureshy H., Protas EJ Performance-based gait tests for acute stroke patients. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2002; 81: 848-56.
90. Mehrholz J., Wagner K., Rutte K., Meiner D., Pohl M. Predictive validity and responsiveness of the functional ambulation category in hemiparetic patients after stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2007; 88: 1314-19.
91. Busse ME, Pearson OR, Van Deursen R., Wiles CM Quantified measurement of activity provides insight into motor function and recovery in neurological disease. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2004; 75: 884-88.
92. Shaughnessy M., Michael KM, Sorkin JD, Macko RF Steps after stroke: capturing ambulatory recovery. Stroke 2005; 36: 1305-307.
93. Haeuber E., Shaughnessy M., Forrester LW, Coleman KL, Macko RF Accelerometer monitoring of home- and community-based ambulatory activity after stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2004; 85: 1997-2001.
94. Ng SS, Hui-Chan CW The Timed Up & Go Test: Its reliability and association with lower-limb impairments and locomotor capacities in people with chronic stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2005; 86: 1641-47.
95. Morris S., Morris ME, Iansek R. Reliability of measurements obtained with the Timed 'Up & Go' test in people with Parkinson disease. Phys Ther 2001; 81: 810-18.
96. Brusse KJ, Zimdars S., Zalewski KR, Steffen TM Testing functional performance in people with Parkinson disease. Phys Ther 2005; 85: 134-41.
97. Williams G., Robertson V., Greenwood K., Goldie P., Morris ME The concurrent validity and responsiveness of the high-level mobility assessment tool for measuring the mobility limitations of people with traumatic brain injury. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2006; 87: 437-42.
98. Williams GP, Greenwood KM, Robertson VJ, Goldie PA, Morris ME High-level Mobility Assessment Tool (HiMAT): Interrater reliability, retest reliability, and internal consistency. Phys Ther 2006; 86: 395-400.
99. Franchignoni F., Tesio L., Benevolo E., Ottonello M. Psychometric properties of the Rivermead Mobility Index in Italian stroke rehabilitation inpatients. Clin Rehabil 2003; 17: 273-82.
100. Hsieh CL, Hsueh IP, Mao HF Validity and responsiveness of the rivermead mobility index in stroke patients. Scand J Rehabil Med 2000; 32: 140-42.
101. Green J., Forster A., Young J. A test-retest reliability study of the Barthel Index, the Rivermead Mobility Index, the Nottingham Extended Activities of Daily Living Scale and the Frenchay Activities Index in stroke patients. Disabil Rehabil 2001; 23: 670-76.
102. Sharrack B., Hughes RAC, Soudain S., Dunn G. The psychometric properties of clinical rating scales used in multiple sclerosis. Brain 1999; 122: 141-59.