2024/03/01 by Ava Mehdipour, Selina Malouka, Marla Beauchamp +2 · 9 citations
Engineering · Health Professions · Medicine · #Balance (ability) #Balance, Gait, and Falls Prevention #CINAHL #Clinical psychology #Computer science #Discriminant validity #Gait #Interpretability #Intraclass correlation #MEDLINE #Machine learning #Medicine #Older Adults Driving Studies #Physical medicine and rehabilitation #Physical therapy #Preferred walking speed #Prosthetics and Rehabilitation Robotics #Psychological intervention #Psychometrics #Quality of life (healthcare) #Reliability (semiconductor) #Test (biology) #Timed Up and Go test
paper · pdf · doi:10.1093/ageing/afae055
openalex publication_date 2024/03/01 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · openalex updated_date 2026/07/29
OBJECTIVE: The gait speed test is one of the most widely used mobility assessments for older adults. We conducted a systematic review to evaluate and compare the measurement properties of the usual and fast gait speed tests in community-dwelling older adults. METHODS: Three databases were searched: MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL. Peer-reviewed articles evaluating the gait speed test's measurement properties or interpretability in community-dwelling older adults were included. The Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments guidelines were followed for data synthesis and quality assessment. RESULTS: Ninety-five articles met our inclusion criteria, with 79 evaluating a measurement property and 16 reporting on interpretability. There was sufficient reliability for both tests, with intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) generally ranging from 0.72 to 0.98, but overall quality of evidence was low. For convergent/discriminant validity, an overall sufficient rating with moderate quality of evidence was found for both tests. Concurrent validity of the usual gait speed test was sufficient (ICCs = 0.79-0.93 with longer distances) with moderate quality of evidence; however, there were insufficient results for the fast gait speed test (e.g. low agreement with longer distances) supported by high-quality studies. Responsiveness was only evaluated in three articles, with low quality of evidence. CONCLUSION: Findings from this review demonstrated evidence in support of the reliability and validity of the usual and fast gait speed tests in community-dwelling older adults. However, future validation studies should employ rigorous methodology and evaluate the tests' responsiveness.