Leighanne M Jarvis1, Matthew J Peterson2, Kevin M Caves3. 1. Department of Head and Neck Surgery & Communication Sciences, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA. Electronic address: Leighanne.davis@duke.edu. 2. Department of Clinical Research, Campbell University, Buies Creek, NC, USA; Department of Medicine, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA. 3. Department of Head and Neck Surgery & Communication Sciences, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA; Department of Medicine (Adjunct), Duke University, Durham, NC, USA; Department of Biomedical Engineering, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA. Electronic address: kevin.caves@duke.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Gait speed is an important measure of health status for older adults and individuals with neurological conditions. Literature reports that measurements made by people are not as accurate as automatic timers. RESEARCH QUESTION: Is the GaitBox (GB), a device to measure walking speed (WS) automatically and accurately, a valid approach to walking speed measurement in a clinical setting? METHODS: Two prospective validation studies were completed comparing the GB to human timers (HT) and the Sprint Timing System (STS). Subjects were recruited from convenience samples of healthy older adults (S1, N = 35, 72.4 + 7.4 years of age) and individuals with Spinal Cord Injury (SCI), Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI), or unknown / no diagnosis (S2, N = 44, 35.3 + 13.5 years of age). Subjects completed 4 timed walks. The GB, HT, and STS simultaneously measured WS across a 4 m or 10 m course. Protocol followed an adapted version of the NIH Walk Test. Subjects were instructed to walk at a normal pace. Validity and reliability were determined using Pearson correlations, absolute mean differences, Intraclass Correlation Coefficients (ICC's) and Bland-Altman plots. RESULTS: WS measured in both studies demonstrated strong correlations between GB and STS (r = 0.98-0.99, p < 0.0001), excellent test-retest reliability GB ICC's (0.93-0.94), no systematic bias, and good precision. In S1 and S2, ICC's between GB and STS were excellent at 0.91 and 0.93, respectively. SIGNIFICANCE: Considering the increased use of WS as a clinically relevant measure of mobility, functional decline, and recovery, accurate measurement of WS are important. These studies show the GB is a valid and reliable measurement tool within various populations completing the 4 m and 10 m walk tests at a usual speed. Additional populations and walking distances should be evaluated further. Due to its accuracy, the GaitBox is a valid alternative to HT in the clinic setting.
BACKGROUND: Gait speed is an important measure of health status for older adults and individuals with neurological conditions. Literature reports that measurements made by people are not as accurate as automatic timers. RESEARCH QUESTION: Is the GaitBox (GB), a device to measure walking speed (WS) automatically and accurately, a valid approach to walking speed measurement in a clinical setting? METHODS: Two prospective validation studies were completed comparing the GB to human timers (HT) and the Sprint Timing System (STS). Subjects were recruited from convenience samples of healthy older adults (S1, N = 35, 72.4 + 7.4 years of age) and individuals with Spinal Cord Injury (SCI), Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI), or unknown / no diagnosis (S2, N = 44, 35.3 + 13.5 years of age). Subjects completed 4 timed walks. The GB, HT, and STS simultaneously measured WS across a 4 m or 10 m course. Protocol followed an adapted version of the NIH Walk Test. Subjects were instructed to walk at a normal pace. Validity and reliability were determined using Pearson correlations, absolute mean differences, Intraclass Correlation Coefficients (ICC's) and Bland-Altman plots. RESULTS: WS measured in both studies demonstrated strong correlations between GB and STS (r = 0.98-0.99, p < 0.0001), excellent test-retest reliability GB ICC's (0.93-0.94), no systematic bias, and good precision. In S1 and S2, ICC's between GB and STS were excellent at 0.91 and 0.93, respectively. SIGNIFICANCE: Considering the increased use of WS as a clinically relevant measure of mobility, functional decline, and recovery, accurate measurement of WS are important. These studies show the GB is a valid and reliable measurement tool within various populations completing the 4 m and 10 m walk tests at a usual speed. Additional populations and walking distances should be evaluated further. Due to its accuracy, the GaitBox is a valid alternative to HT in the clinic setting.
Authors: James E Graham; Glenn V Ostir; Yong-Fang Kuo; Steven R Fisher; Kenneth J Ottenbacher Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2008-05 Impact factor: 3.966
Authors: Ross A Clark; Yong-Hao Pua; Kelly J Bower; Louise Bechard; Emma Hough; Paula C Charlton; Benjamin Mentiplay Journal: J Sci Med Sport Date: 2018-07-17 Impact factor: 4.319
Authors: Matteo Cesari; Stephen B Kritchevsky; Brenda W H J Penninx; Barbara J Nicklas; Eleanor M Simonsick; Anne B Newman; Frances A Tylavsky; Jennifer S Brach; Suzanne Satterfield; Douglas C Bauer; Marjolein Visser; Susan M Rubin; Tamara B Harris; Marco Pahor Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2005-10 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Lysanne van Silfhout; Allard J F Hosman; Ronald H M A Bartels; Michael J R Edwards; Rainer Abel; Armin Curt; Henk van de Meent Journal: Neurorehabil Neural Repair Date: 2017-08-08 Impact factor: 3.919
Authors: Manuel Montero-Odasso; Marcelo Schapira; Enrique R Soriano; Miguel Varela; Roberto Kaplan; Luis A Camera; L Marcelo Mayorga Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2005-10 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: G Abellan van Kan; Y Rolland; S Andrieu; J Bauer; O Beauchet; M Bonnefoy; M Cesari; L M Donini; S Gillette Guyonnet; M Inzitari; F Nourhashemi; G Onder; P Ritz; A Salva; M Visser; B Vellas Journal: J Nutr Health Aging Date: 2009-12 Impact factor: 4.075
Authors: Susan E Hardy; Subashan Perera; Yazan F Roumani; Julie M Chandler; Stephanie A Studenski Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2007-10-03 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Marcello Maggio; Gian Paolo Ceda; Andrea Ticinesi; Francesca De Vita; Giovanni Gelmini; Cosimo Costantino; Tiziana Meschi; Reto W Kressig; Matteo Cesari; Massimo Fabi; Fulvio Lauretani Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-04-14 Impact factor: 3.240