BACKGROUND: The minimal detectable change (MDC) is the smallest amount of difference in individual scores that represents true change (beyond random measurement error). The MDCs of the Timed "Up & Go" Test (TUG) and the Dynamic Gait Index (DGI) in people with Parkinson disease (PD) are largely unknown, limiting the interpretability of the change scores of both measures. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to estimate the MDCs of the TUG and the DGI in people with PD. DESIGN: This investigation was a prospective cohort study. METHODS: Seventy-two participants were recruited from special clinics for movement disorders at a university hospital. Their mean age was 67.5 years, and 61% were men. All participants completed the TUG and the DGI assessments twice, about 14 days apart. The MDC was calculated from the standard error of measurement. The percentage MDC (MDC%) was calculated as the MDC divided by the mean of all scores for the sample. Furthermore, the intraclass correlation coefficient was used to examine the reproducibility between testing sessions (test-retest reliability). RESULTS: The respective MDC and MDC% of the TUG were 3.5 seconds and 29.8, and those of the DGI were 2.9 points and 13.3. The test-retest reliability values for the TUG and the DGI were high; the intraclass correlation coefficients were .80 and .84, respectively. LIMITATIONS: The study sample was a convenience sample, and the participants had mild to moderately severe PD. CONCLUSIONS: The results showed that the TUG and the DGI have generally acceptable random measurement error and test-retest reliability. These findings should help clinicians and researchers determine whether a change in an individual patient with PD is a true change.
BACKGROUND: The minimal detectable change (MDC) is the smallest amount of difference in individual scores that represents true change (beyond random measurement error). The MDCs of the Timed "Up & Go" Test (TUG) and the Dynamic Gait Index (DGI) in people with Parkinson disease (PD) are largely unknown, limiting the interpretability of the change scores of both measures. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to estimate the MDCs of the TUG and the DGI in people with PD. DESIGN: This investigation was a prospective cohort study. METHODS: Seventy-two participants were recruited from special clinics for movement disorders at a university hospital. Their mean age was 67.5 years, and 61% were men. All participants completed the TUG and the DGI assessments twice, about 14 days apart. The MDC was calculated from the standard error of measurement. The percentage MDC (MDC%) was calculated as the MDC divided by the mean of all scores for the sample. Furthermore, the intraclass correlation coefficient was used to examine the reproducibility between testing sessions (test-retest reliability). RESULTS: The respective MDC and MDC% of the TUG were 3.5 seconds and 29.8, and those of the DGI were 2.9 points and 13.3. The test-retest reliability values for the TUG and the DGI were high; the intraclass correlation coefficients were .80 and .84, respectively. LIMITATIONS: The study sample was a convenience sample, and the participants had mild to moderately severe PD. CONCLUSIONS: The results showed that the TUG and the DGI have generally acceptable random measurement error and test-retest reliability. These findings should help clinicians and researchers determine whether a change in an individual patient with PD is a true change.
Authors: Miriam R Rafferty; Peter N Schmidt; Sheng T Luo; Kan Li; Connie Marras; Thomas L Davis; Mark Guttman; Fernando Cubillos; Tanya Simuni Journal: J Parkinsons Dis Date: 2017 Impact factor: 5.568
Authors: Jennifer L Moore; Kirsten Potter; Kathleen Blankshain; Sandra L Kaplan; Linda C OʼDwyer; Jane E Sullivan Journal: J Neurol Phys Ther Date: 2018-07 Impact factor: 3.649
Authors: Janey Prodoehl; Miriam R Rafferty; Fabian J David; Cynthia Poon; David E Vaillancourt; Cynthia L Comella; Sue E Leurgans; Wendy M Kohrt; Daniel M Corcos; Julie A Robichaud Journal: Neurorehabil Neural Repair Date: 2014-06-24 Impact factor: 3.919
Authors: Joe R Nocera; Elizabeth L Stegemöller; Irene A Malaty; Michael S Okun; Michael Marsiske; Chris J Hass Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2013-03-06 Impact factor: 3.966
Authors: Priya V Mhatre; Iris Vilares; Stacy M Stibb; Mark V Albert; Laura Pickering; Christina M Marciniak; Konrad Kording; Santiago Toledo Journal: PM R Date: 2013-06-11 Impact factor: 2.298