Russell T Johnson1, Jocelyn F Hafer2, Ryan D Wedge3, Katherine A Boyer4. 1. Department of Kinesiology, 30 Eastman Lane, University of Massachusetts Amherst, Amherst, MA, 01003, USA; Division of Biokinesiology and Physical Therapy, 1540 E Alcazar St, CHP 155, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, 90089, USA. Electronic address: rtjohnso@usc.edu. 2. School of Kinesiology, University of Michigan, 401 Washtenaw Ave, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109, USA; Department of Kinesiology and Applied Physiology, University of Delaware, 100 Discovery Blvd, Newark, DE, 19713, USA. 3. Department of Kinesiology, 30 Eastman Lane, University of Massachusetts Amherst, Amherst, MA, 01003, USA; Department of Physical Therapy, East Carolina University, 600 Moye Blvd, Greenville, NC, 27834, USA. 4. Department of Kinesiology, 30 Eastman Lane, University of Massachusetts Amherst, Amherst, MA, 01003, USA; Department of Orthopedics and Physical Rehabilitation, University of Massachusetts Medical School, 55 N Lake Ave, Worcester, MA, 01655, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Walking speed influences a variety of typical outcome measures in gait analysis. Many researchers use a participant's preferred walking speed (PWS) during gait analysis with a goal of trying to capture how a participant would typically walk. However, the best practices for estimating PWS and the impact of laboratory size and walk distance are still unclear. RESEARCH QUESTION: Is measured PWS consistent across different distances and between two laboratory sites? METHODS: Participants walked overground at a "comfortable speed" for six different conditions with either dynamic (4, 6, 10, and 400 m) or static (4 and 10 m) starts and stops at two different data collection sites. Repeated measures ANOVA with Bonferroni corrections were used to test for differences between conditions and sites. RESULTS: Participants walked significantly faster in the 4, 6, and 10 m dynamic conditions than in the 400 m condition. On average, participants walked slower in the static trials than the dynamic trials of the same distance. There was a significant interaction of lab and condition and so results were examined within each lab. Across both labs, we found that the 4 and 10 m dynamic conditions were not different than the 6 m dynamic condition at both sites, while other tests did not provide consistent results at both sites. SIGNIFICANCE: We recommend researchers use a 6 m distance with acceleration and deceleration zones to reliably test for PWS across different laboratories. Given some of the differences found between conditions that varied by site, we also emphasize the need to report the test environment and methods used to estimate PWS in all future studies so that the methods can be replicated between studies.
BACKGROUND: Walking speed influences a variety of typical outcome measures in gait analysis. Many researchers use a participant's preferred walking speed (PWS) during gait analysis with a goal of trying to capture how a participant would typically walk. However, the best practices for estimating PWS and the impact of laboratory size and walk distance are still unclear. RESEARCH QUESTION: Is measured PWS consistent across different distances and between two laboratory sites? METHODS:Participants walked overground at a "comfortable speed" for six different conditions with either dynamic (4, 6, 10, and 400 m) or static (4 and 10 m) starts and stops at two different data collection sites. Repeated measures ANOVA with Bonferroni corrections were used to test for differences between conditions and sites. RESULTS:Participants walked significantly faster in the 4, 6, and 10 m dynamic conditions than in the 400 m condition. On average, participants walked slower in the static trials than the dynamic trials of the same distance. There was a significant interaction of lab and condition and so results were examined within each lab. Across both labs, we found that the 4 and 10 m dynamic conditions were not different than the 6 m dynamic condition at both sites, while other tests did not provide consistent results at both sites. SIGNIFICANCE: We recommend researchers use a 6 m distance with acceleration and deceleration zones to reliably test for PWS across different laboratories. Given some of the differences found between conditions that varied by site, we also emphasize the need to report the test environment and methods used to estimate PWS in all future studies so that the methods can be replicated between studies.
Authors: Hiral Master; Tuhina Neogi; Michael LaValley; Louise M Thoma; Yuqing Zhang; Dana Voinier; Meredith B Christiansen; Daniel K White Journal: J Rheumatol Date: 2020-09-01 Impact factor: 4.666
Authors: Sheridan M Parker; Jeremy Crenshaw; Nathaniel H Hunt; Christopher Burcal; Brian A Knarr Journal: Biomed Eng Online Date: 2021-10-15 Impact factor: 2.819
Authors: Kenzie B Friesen; Zhaotong Zhang; Patrick G Monaghan; Gretchen D Oliver; Jaimie A Roper Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2020-10-13 Impact factor: 4.379