C Riwniak1, J E Simon, N P Wages, L A Clark, T M Manini, D W Russ, B C Clark. 1. Brian C. Clark, Ph.D., Ohio Musculoskeletal and Neurological Institute, Ohio University, 250 Irvine Hall, Athens, OH 45701, 740-593-2354, Email: clarkb2@ohio.edu, simonj1@ohio.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To compare a composite measure of physical function that comprises locomotor and non-locomotor tests (i.e., the Mobility Battery Assessment (MBA)) with traditional measures of mobility (4-m usual gait speed (UGS), six-minute walk (6MW) gait speed, and short physical performance battery (SPPB) score) for assessing lower extremity function and discriminating community dwelling older adults with and without mobility limitations. DESIGN: Cross-sectional, observational study. SETTING: Laboratory-based. PARTICIPANTS: 89 community-dwelling older adults (74.9±6.7). MEASUREMENTS: Using principal component analysis we derived an MBA score for 89 community-dwelling older adults, and quantified 4-m UGS, 6MW gait speed, and SPPB score. The MBA score was based on five lab-based tests. We also quantified self-reported lower extremity function/mobility using the Neuro-QOL Lower Extremity Function-Mobility instrument. Based on this data a continuous score was derived and subjects were classified as "mobility limited" or "non-mobility limited". Correlations between the mobility measures and the Neuro-QOL score were calculated, and ROC curves were constructed to determine the AUC for the mobility measures ability to predict mobility limitations. RESULTS: The MBA had the largest AUC (0.92) for discriminating mobility limitations and exhibited the strongest correlation (0.73) with the Neuro-QOL Lower Extremity Function-Mobility Scale. The worst performing predictors were the 4-meter UGS and stair climb power both with an AUC of 0.8 for discriminating mobility limitations, and a low correlation with Neuro-QOL Lower Extremity Function Scale of 0.39 and 0.46, respectively. CONCLUSION: The MBA score moderately improves the magnitude of correlation and discrimination of mobility limitation in older adults than singular, standard tests of mobility.
OBJECTIVES: To compare a composite measure of physical function that comprises locomotor and non-locomotor tests (i.e., the Mobility Battery Assessment (MBA)) with traditional measures of mobility (4-m usual gait speed (UGS), six-minute walk (6MW) gait speed, and short physical performance battery (SPPB) score) for assessing lower extremity function and discriminating community dwelling older adults with and without mobility limitations. DESIGN: Cross-sectional, observational study. SETTING: Laboratory-based. PARTICIPANTS: 89 community-dwelling older adults (74.9±6.7). MEASUREMENTS: Using principal component analysis we derived an MBA score for 89 community-dwelling older adults, and quantified 4-m UGS, 6MW gait speed, and SPPB score. The MBA score was based on five lab-based tests. We also quantified self-reported lower extremity function/mobility using the Neuro-QOL Lower Extremity Function-Mobility instrument. Based on this data a continuous score was derived and subjects were classified as "mobility limited" or "non-mobility limited". Correlations between the mobility measures and the Neuro-QOL score were calculated, and ROC curves were constructed to determine the AUC for the mobility measures ability to predict mobility limitations. RESULTS: The MBA had the largest AUC (0.92) for discriminating mobility limitations and exhibited the strongest correlation (0.73) with the Neuro-QOL Lower Extremity Function-Mobility Scale. The worst performing predictors were the 4-meter UGS and stair climb power both with an AUC of 0.8 for discriminating mobility limitations, and a low correlation with Neuro-QOL Lower Extremity Function Scale of 0.39 and 0.46, respectively. CONCLUSION: The MBA score moderately improves the magnitude of correlation and discrimination of mobility limitation in older adults than singular, standard tests of mobility.
Authors: Simon Moskowitz; David W Russ; Leatha A Clark; Nathan P Wages; Dustin R Grooms; Adam J Woods; Julie Suhr; Janet E Simon; Andrew O'Shea; Cody R Criss; Paolo Fadda; Brian C Clark Journal: Geroscience Date: 2020-11-24 Impact factor: 7.713
Authors: Leatha A Clark; David W Russ; Dallin Tavoian; W David Arnold; Timothy D Law; Christopher R France; Brian C Clark Journal: Exp Gerontol Date: 2021-06-04 Impact factor: 4.253
Authors: Brooke A Vaughan; Janet E Simon; Dustin R Grooms; Leatha A Clark; Nathan P Wages; Brian C Clark Journal: Front Aging Neurosci Date: 2022-01-31 Impact factor: 5.750