David R Howell1,2,3, Anna N Brilliant3,4, William P Meehan3,4,5. 1. Sports Medicine Center, Children's Hospital Colorado, Aurora. 2. Department of Orthopedics, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora. 3. The Micheli Center for Sports Injury Prevention, Waltham, MA. 4. Division of Sports Medicine, Department of Orthopaedics, Boston Children's Hospital, MA. 5. Departments of Pediatrics and Orthopaedics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.
Abstract
CONTEXT: The tandem gait test is a method for assessing dynamic postural control and part of the Sport Concussion Assessment Tool, versions 3 and 5. However, its reliability among child and adolescent athletes has yet to be established. OBJECTIVE: To examine the test-retest reliability of the single-task and dual-task tandem gait test among healthy child and adolescent athletes. DESIGN: Descriptive laboratory study. SETTING: Sports injury-prevention center. PATIENTS OR OTHER PARTICIPANTS: Uninjured and healthy athletes between the ages of 9 and 18 years. INTERVENTION(S): Tandem gait measures repeated 3 times across the period of approximately 1 month. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Participants completed the tandem gait test under single-task and dual-task (ie, while simultaneously executing a cognitive task) conditions. Our primary outcome measure was completion time during the single-task and dual-task conditions. We also assessed cognitive accuracy and response rate while participants completed the dual-task tandem gait test. RESULTS: Thirty-two child and adolescent athletes completed the study (mean age = 14.3 ± 2.4 years; females = 16). Single-task tandem gait times were similar across the 3 testing sessions (14.4 ± 4.8, 13.5 ± 4.2, and 13.8 ± 4.8 seconds; P = .45). Dual-task tandem gait times steadily improved across the test timeline (18.6 ± 6.9, 16.6 ± 4.5, and 15.8 ± 4.7 seconds; P = .02). Bivariate correlations indicated moderately high to high agreement from test 1 to test 2 (single-task r = .627; dual-task r = 0.655) and from test 2 to test 3 (single-task r = 0.852; dual-task r = 0.775). Both the single-task (intraclass correlation coefficient; ICC [3,1] = 0.86; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.73, 0.93) and dual-task (ICC [3,1] = 0.84; 95% CI = 0.69, 0.92) conditions demonstrated high reliability across testing sessions. CONCLUSIONS: Tandem gait outcome measures demonstrated high test-retest reliability in both the single- and dual-task conditions. The overall reliability was within the acceptable range for clinical practice, but improvements across tests suggested a moderate practice effect. Tandem gait represents a reliable, dynamic, postural-control test that requires minimal space, cost, and time.
CONTEXT: The tandem gait test is a method for assessing dynamic postural control and part of the Sport Concussion Assessment Tool, versions 3 and 5. However, its reliability among child and adolescent athletes has yet to be established. OBJECTIVE: To examine the test-retest reliability of the single-task and dual-task tandem gait test among healthy child and adolescent athletes. DESIGN: Descriptive laboratory study. SETTING: Sports injury-prevention center. PATIENTS OR OTHER PARTICIPANTS: Uninjured and healthy athletes between the ages of 9 and 18 years. INTERVENTION(S): Tandem gait measures repeated 3 times across the period of approximately 1 month. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Participants completed the tandem gait test under single-task and dual-task (ie, while simultaneously executing a cognitive task) conditions. Our primary outcome measure was completion time during the single-task and dual-task conditions. We also assessed cognitive accuracy and response rate while participants completed the dual-task tandem gait test. RESULTS: Thirty-two child and adolescent athletes completed the study (mean age = 14.3 ± 2.4 years; females = 16). Single-task tandem gait times were similar across the 3 testing sessions (14.4 ± 4.8, 13.5 ± 4.2, and 13.8 ± 4.8 seconds; P = .45). Dual-task tandem gait times steadily improved across the test timeline (18.6 ± 6.9, 16.6 ± 4.5, and 15.8 ± 4.7 seconds; P = .02). Bivariate correlations indicated moderately high to high agreement from test 1 to test 2 (single-task r = .627; dual-task r = 0.655) and from test 2 to test 3 (single-task r = 0.852; dual-task r = 0.775). Both the single-task (intraclass correlation coefficient; ICC [3,1] = 0.86; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.73, 0.93) and dual-task (ICC [3,1] = 0.84; 95% CI = 0.69, 0.92) conditions demonstrated high reliability across testing sessions. CONCLUSIONS: Tandem gait outcome measures demonstrated high test-retest reliability in both the single- and dual-task conditions. The overall reliability was within the acceptable range for clinical practice, but improvements across tests suggested a moderate practice effect. Tandem gait represents a reliable, dynamic, postural-control test that requires minimal space, cost, and time.
Authors: David R Howell; Jessie R Oldham; Melissa DiFabio; Srikant Vallabhajosula; Eric E Hall; Caroline J Ketcham; William P Meehan; Thomas A Buckley Journal: J Appl Biomech Date: 2016-10-05 Impact factor: 1.833
Authors: David R Howell; Jessie R Oldham; William P Meehan; Melissa S DiFabio; Thomas A Buckley Journal: Clin J Sport Med Date: 2019-05 Impact factor: 3.638
Authors: Jessie R Oldham; Melissa S DiFabio; Thomas W Kaminski; Ryan M DeWolf; Thomas A Buckley Journal: Sports Health Date: 2016-11-01 Impact factor: 3.843
Authors: Sebastian Rutkowski; Adam Wrzeciono; Oliver Czech; Anna Rutkowska; Jan Szczegielniak Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-04-15 Impact factor: 4.614
Authors: Daniel J Corwin; Kristy B Arbogast; Casey Swann; Rebecca Haber; Matthew F Grady; Christina L Master Journal: Am J Emerg Med Date: 2020-06-11 Impact factor: 2.469
Authors: Jessie R Oldham; David R Howell; Christopher A Knight; Jeremy R Crenshaw; Thomas A Buckley Journal: Clin J Sport Med Date: 2020-08-17 Impact factor: 3.638
Authors: Jessie R Oldham; David R Howell; Kelsey N Bryk; Corey J Lanois; Inga K Koerte; William P Meehan; Thomas A Buckley Journal: J Sci Med Sport Date: 2020-04-13 Impact factor: 4.319
Authors: Elena M Bonke; Julia Southard; Thomas A Buckley; Claus Reinsberger; Inga K Koerte; David R Howell Journal: J Sci Med Sport Date: 2020-09-09 Impact factor: 4.319
Authors: Patricia R Roby; Kristina B Metzger; Catherine C McDonald; Daniel J Corwin; Colin M Huber; Declan A Patton; Susan S Margulies; Matthew F Grady; Christina L Master; Kristy B Arbogast Journal: Phys Sportsmed Date: 2021-09-21 Impact factor: 2.241
Authors: David R Howell; Corrine N Seehusen; Mathew J Wingerson; Julie C Wilson; Robert C Lynall; Vipul Lugade Journal: J Appl Biomech Date: 2021-07-13 Impact factor: 1.606
Authors: David R Howell; Scott Bonnette; Jed A Diekfuss; Dustin R Grooms; Gregory D Myer; Julie C Wilson; William P Meehan Journal: Sensors (Basel) Date: 2020-11-05 Impact factor: 3.576
Authors: Katie A Van Deventer; Corrine N Seehusen; Gregory A Walker; Julie C Wilson; David R Howell Journal: J Sport Health Sci Date: 2020-08-12 Impact factor: 7.179