PURPOSE: To study the reliability of a Non-Instrumented Walk Test in individuals with Parkinson's disease (PD). METHOD: Thirty individuals (21 Males) with PD were studied. Their mean age was 68.90 ± 9.28 years. The average time since diagnosis was 8.75 ± 5.68 years. The reliability of the manual Non-Instrumented Walk Test was studied while "OFF" and "ON" dopaminergic medication. Subjects walked at their self-selected, usual speed during a Non-Instrumented Walk Test and while walking on a computerized instrumented walkway. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were calculated and means were compared for three gait parameters as measured by the two methods. RESULTS: During "OFF" medication testing, ICCs between the Non-Instrumented Walk Test and the instrumented measures for gait speed, cadence and stride length were 0.96 (p < 0.0005), 0.72 (p = 0.001) and 0.97 (p < 0.0005), respectively. During "ON" medication testing, the ICCs were 0.96 (p < 0.0005), 0.86 (p < 0.0005) and 0.96 (p < 0.0005), respectively. The means of the non-instrumented measures tended to be lower than those obtained on the instrumented walkway. CONCLUSIONS: The Non-Instrumented Walk Test is a quick, simple and inexpensive gait evaluation for individuals with PD. The method is sufficiently reliable to be used clinically in this population during different medication cycles. IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATION: • The Non-Instrumented Walk Test in individuals with PD is reliable. • Results supported the use of the measure. This simple walk test is quick and easy to administer in both clinical and community settings.
PURPOSE: To study the reliability of a Non-Instrumented Walk Test in individuals with Parkinson's disease (PD). METHOD: Thirty individuals (21 Males) with PD were studied. Their mean age was 68.90 ± 9.28 years. The average time since diagnosis was 8.75 ± 5.68 years. The reliability of the manual Non-Instrumented Walk Test was studied while "OFF" and "ON" dopaminergic medication. Subjects walked at their self-selected, usual speed during a Non-Instrumented Walk Test and while walking on a computerized instrumented walkway. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were calculated and means were compared for three gait parameters as measured by the two methods. RESULTS: During "OFF" medication testing, ICCs between the Non-Instrumented Walk Test and the instrumented measures for gait speed, cadence and stride length were 0.96 (p < 0.0005), 0.72 (p = 0.001) and 0.97 (p < 0.0005), respectively. During "ON" medication testing, the ICCs were 0.96 (p < 0.0005), 0.86 (p < 0.0005) and 0.96 (p < 0.0005), respectively. The means of the non-instrumented measures tended to be lower than those obtained on the instrumented walkway. CONCLUSIONS: The Non-Instrumented Walk Test is a quick, simple and inexpensive gait evaluation for individuals with PD. The method is sufficiently reliable to be used clinically in this population during different medication cycles. IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATION: • The Non-Instrumented Walk Test in individuals with PD is reliable. • Results supported the use of the measure. This simple walk test is quick and easy to administer in both clinical and community settings.