Peter C Coyle1,2, Subashan Perera3, Valerie Shuman1, Jessie VanSwearingen1, Jennifer S Brach1. 1. Department of Physical Therapy, University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 2. Department of Physical Therapy, University of Delaware, Newark. 3. Department of Medicine, Division of Geriatric Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Figure-of-8-Walk test (F8WT) is a performance measure of the motor skill of walking. Unlike walking speed over a straight path, it captures curved path walking, which is essential to real-world activity, but meaningful cut-points have yet to be developed for the F8WT. METHODS: A secondary analysis of 421 community-dwelling older adults (mean age 80.7 ± 7.8), who participated in a community-based exercise clinical trial, was performed. Area under receiver operating characteristic curves (AUROCC) were calculated using baseline data, with F8WT performance discriminating different self-reported global mobility and balance dichotomies. Cut-points for the F8WT were chosen to optimize sensitivity and specificity. For validation, F8WT cut-points were applied to postintervention F8WT data. Participants were called monthly for 12 months after intervention completion to record self-reported incident falls, emergency department visits, and hospitalizations; risks of the outcomes were compared between those who performed well and poorly on the F8WT. RESULTS: F8WT performance times of ≤9.09 seconds and ≤9.27 seconds can discriminate those with excellent (sensitivity = 0.647; specificity = 0.654) and excellent/very good global mobility (sensitivity = 0.649; specificity = 0.648), respectively. A total number of steps ≤17 on the F8WT can discriminate those with excellent/very good/good global balance (sensitivity = 0.646; specificity = 0.608). Compared to those who performed poorly, those who performed well had a lower incidence of negative outcomes: F8WT time ≤9.09 seconds = 46%-59% lower; F8WT time ≤9.27 seconds = 46%-56% lower; F8WT steps ≤17 = 44%-50% lower. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians may consider these preliminary cut-points to aid in their clinical decision making, but further study is needed for definitive recommendations.
BACKGROUND: The Figure-of-8-Walk test (F8WT) is a performance measure of the motor skill of walking. Unlike walking speed over a straight path, it captures curved path walking, which is essential to real-world activity, but meaningful cut-points have yet to be developed for the F8WT. METHODS: A secondary analysis of 421 community-dwelling older adults (mean age 80.7 ± 7.8), who participated in a community-based exercise clinical trial, was performed. Area under receiver operating characteristic curves (AUROCC) were calculated using baseline data, with F8WT performance discriminating different self-reported global mobility and balance dichotomies. Cut-points for the F8WT were chosen to optimize sensitivity and specificity. For validation, F8WT cut-points were applied to postintervention F8WT data. Participants were called monthly for 12 months after intervention completion to record self-reported incident falls, emergency department visits, and hospitalizations; risks of the outcomes were compared between those who performed well and poorly on the F8WT. RESULTS: F8WT performance times of ≤9.09 seconds and ≤9.27 seconds can discriminate those with excellent (sensitivity = 0.647; specificity = 0.654) and excellent/very good global mobility (sensitivity = 0.649; specificity = 0.648), respectively. A total number of steps ≤17 on the F8WT can discriminate those with excellent/very good/good global balance (sensitivity = 0.646; specificity = 0.608). Compared to those who performed poorly, those who performed well had a lower incidence of negative outcomes: F8WT time ≤9.09 seconds = 46%-59% lower; F8WT time ≤9.27 seconds = 46%-56% lower; F8WT steps ≤17 = 44%-50% lower. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians may consider these preliminary cut-points to aid in their clinical decision making, but further study is needed for definitive recommendations.
Authors: J M Guralnik; L Ferrucci; C F Pieper; S G Leveille; K S Markides; G V Ostir; S Studenski; L F Berkman; R B Wallace Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2000-04 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Sarah A Welch; Rachel E Ward; Laura A Kurlinski; Dan K Kiely; Richard Goldstein; Jessie VanSwearingen; Jennifer S Brach; Jonathan F Bean Journal: PM R Date: 2015-12-28 Impact factor: 2.298
Authors: Marco Inzitari; Anne B Newman; Kristine Yaffe; Robert Boudreau; Nathalie de Rekeneire; Ronald Shorr; Tamara B Harris; Caterina Rosano Journal: Neuroepidemiology Date: 2007-11-27 Impact factor: 3.282