OBJECTIVE: To determine the agreement for measurements of stride length, cadence, and walking speed obtained from the GAITRite system and the stopwatch-footfall count technique. DESIGN: Criterion standard. SETTING: Research laboratory in a physical therapy education program. PARTICIPANTS: Forty healthy volunteers (13 men, 27 women) without lower-extremity injury. INTERVENTIONS: Participants walked across a GAITRite mat with embedded pressure sensors at their self-selected walking speed. Simultaneously, an examiner used a stopwatch to record the elapsed time necessary to cross the mat and counted the number of complete footfalls. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Walking speed, cadence, and stride-length measures were compared between the GAITRite system and the stopwatch-footfall count technique. RESULTS: Correlation coefficients comparing both systems were .97 for walking speed, .75 for cadence, and .85 for stride length. Ninety-five percent of the time we would expect the between-methods differences to range between .09 and -.05m/s for walking speed, between -1.5 and -24.3 steps/min for cadence, and between .01 and .37m for stride length. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that the GAITRite and stopwatch-footfall count methods lack clinically acceptable agreement for the measurements of cadence and stride length in a group of healthy volunteers walking at their self-selected speeds. Clinicians who require precise measurement of cadence and stride length should consider using the GAITRite system instead of the stopwatch-footfall count technique.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the agreement for measurements of stride length, cadence, and walking speed obtained from the GAITRite system and the stopwatch-footfall count technique. DESIGN: Criterion standard. SETTING: Research laboratory in a physical therapy education program. PARTICIPANTS: Forty healthy volunteers (13 men, 27 women) without lower-extremity injury. INTERVENTIONS:Participants walked across a GAITRite mat with embedded pressure sensors at their self-selected walking speed. Simultaneously, an examiner used a stopwatch to record the elapsed time necessary to cross the mat and counted the number of complete footfalls. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Walking speed, cadence, and stride-length measures were compared between the GAITRite system and the stopwatch-footfall count technique. RESULTS: Correlation coefficients comparing both systems were .97 for walking speed, .75 for cadence, and .85 for stride length. Ninety-five percent of the time we would expect the between-methods differences to range between .09 and -.05m/s for walking speed, between -1.5 and -24.3 steps/min for cadence, and between .01 and .37m for stride length. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that the GAITRite and stopwatch-footfall count methods lack clinically acceptable agreement for the measurements of cadence and stride length in a group of healthy volunteers walking at their self-selected speeds. Clinicians who require precise measurement of cadence and stride length should consider using the GAITRite system instead of the stopwatch-footfall count technique.
Authors: Joshua J Stefanik; K Douglas Gross; Ali Guermazi; David T Felson; Frank W Roemer; Jingbo Niu; John A Lynch; Neil A Segal; Cora E Lewis; Cara L Lewis Journal: Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) Date: 2016-06 Impact factor: 4.794
Authors: Mark G Bowden; Chitralakshmi K Balasubramanian; Andrea L Behrman; Steven A Kautz Journal: Neurorehabil Neural Repair Date: 2008 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 3.919
Authors: Rita C Guedes; Rosângela C Dias; Leani S M Pereira; Sílvia L A Silva; Lygia P Lustosa; João M D Dias Journal: Braz J Phys Ther Date: 2014-09-12 Impact factor: 3.377