Carolyn Guidarelli1, Colin Lipps1, Sydnee Stoyles2, Nathan F Dieckmann3, Kerri M Winters-Stone4. 1. Division of Oncological Sciences, Knight Cancer Institute, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, USA. 2. School of Nursing, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, USA. 3. School of Nursing, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, USA; Department of Psychiatry, School of Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, USA. 4. Division of Oncological Sciences, Knight Cancer Institute, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, USA; School of Nursing, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, USA. Electronic address: wintersk@ohsu.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To assess the reliability of using videoconference technology to remotely administer the Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB), including the 5-time sit-to-stand (5XSTS) and usual 4-m walk (4mWT), and the Timed Up and Go (TUG) tests and agreement with in-person administration among adults with and without cancer. METHODS: Participants from two ongoing clinical exercise trials in cancer survivors, one that included partners without cancer, comprised the available sample (n = 176; mean age 62.5 ± 11.5 years.). Remote tests were administered on two separate days by either the same or a different assessor to determine intra-rater and inter-rater reliability, respectively. We also compared tests conducted remotely and in-person using the same assessor and the same participant. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were used for all comparisons, except for the SPPB score, which used Cohen's kappa and Krippendorf's alpha for intra- and inter-rater reliability, respectively. RESULTS: Remote assessment of the TUG test had excellent intra-rater reliability (0.98, 95% CI 0.93-0.99), inter-rater reliability (ICC = 0.96, 95% CI 0.90-0.99), and good agreement with in-person tests (ICC = 0.88, 95% CI 0.74-0.94). The 5XSTS and 4mWT showed excellent (ICC = 0.92, 95% CI 0.84-0.96) and good (ICC = 0.87, 95% CI 0.71-0.94) intra-rater reliability, respectively, but somewhat lower inter-rater reliability (5XSTS: ICC = 0.65, 95% CI 0.34-0.83 and 4mWT: ICC = 0.62, 95% CI 0.30-0.81). Remote 5XSTS had moderate agreement (ICC = 0.72, 95% CI 0.62-0.80) and 4mWT had poor agreement (ICC = 0.48, 95% CI -0.07-0.76) with in-person tests. CONCLUSIONS: Remote assessment of common physical function tests in older adults, including those who have cancer, is feasible and highly reliable when using the same assessor. TUG may be the most methodologically robust measure for remote assessment because it is also highly reliable when using different assessors and correlates strongly with in-person testing. Adapting administration of objective measures of physical function for the remote environment could significantly expand the reach of research and clinical practice to assess populations at risk of functional decline.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the reliability of using videoconference technology to remotely administer the Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB), including the 5-time sit-to-stand (5XSTS) and usual 4-m walk (4mWT), and the Timed Up and Go (TUG) tests and agreement with in-person administration among adults with and without cancer. METHODS: Participants from two ongoing clinical exercise trials in cancer survivors, one that included partners without cancer, comprised the available sample (n = 176; mean age 62.5 ± 11.5 years.). Remote tests were administered on two separate days by either the same or a different assessor to determine intra-rater and inter-rater reliability, respectively. We also compared tests conducted remotely and in-person using the same assessor and the same participant. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were used for all comparisons, except for the SPPB score, which used Cohen's kappa and Krippendorf's alpha for intra- and inter-rater reliability, respectively. RESULTS: Remote assessment of the TUG test had excellent intra-rater reliability (0.98, 95% CI 0.93-0.99), inter-rater reliability (ICC = 0.96, 95% CI 0.90-0.99), and good agreement with in-person tests (ICC = 0.88, 95% CI 0.74-0.94). The 5XSTS and 4mWT showed excellent (ICC = 0.92, 95% CI 0.84-0.96) and good (ICC = 0.87, 95% CI 0.71-0.94) intra-rater reliability, respectively, but somewhat lower inter-rater reliability (5XSTS: ICC = 0.65, 95% CI 0.34-0.83 and 4mWT: ICC = 0.62, 95% CI 0.30-0.81). Remote 5XSTS had moderate agreement (ICC = 0.72, 95% CI 0.62-0.80) and 4mWT had poor agreement (ICC = 0.48, 95% CI -0.07-0.76) with in-person tests. CONCLUSIONS: Remote assessment of common physical function tests in older adults, including those who have cancer, is feasible and highly reliable when using the same assessor. TUG may be the most methodologically robust measure for remote assessment because it is also highly reliable when using different assessors and correlates strongly with in-person testing. Adapting administration of objective measures of physical function for the remote environment could significantly expand the reach of research and clinical practice to assess populations at risk of functional decline.
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: Matthew A D Brodie; Milou J M Coppens; Stephen R Lord; Nigel H Lovell; Yves J Gschwind; Stephen J Redmond; Michael Benjamin Del Rosario; Kejia Wang; Daina L Sturnieks; Michela Persiani; Kim Delbaere Journal: Med Biol Eng Comput Date: 2015-08-06 Impact factor: 2.602
Authors: Stephanie Studenski; Subashan Perera; Dennis Wallace; Julie M Chandler; Pamela W Duncan; Earl Rooney; Michael Fox; Jack M Guralnik Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2003-03 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: David B Reuben; Teresa E Seeman; Emmett Keeler; Risa P Hayes; Lee Bowman; Ase Sewall; Susan H Hirsch; Robert B Wallace; Jack M Guralnik Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2004-10 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: B Hensen; C R S Mackworth-Young; M Simwinga; N Abdelmagid; J Banda; C Mavodza; A M Doyle; C Bonell; H A Weiss Journal: Health Policy Plan Date: 2021-04-21 Impact factor: 3.344
Authors: Kerri M Winters-Stone; Karen S Lyons; Nathan F Dieckmann; Christopher S Lee; Zahi Mitri; Tomasz M Beer Journal: Trials Date: 2021-08-30 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Justin C Brown; Elizabeth Brighton; Nancy Campbell; Nadine J McCleary; Thomas A Abrams; James M Cleary; Peter C Enzinger; Kimmie Ng; Douglas Rubinson; Brian M Wolpin; Matthew B Yurgelun; Jeffrey A Meyerhardt Journal: BMJ Open Sport Exerc Med Date: 2022-05-30