Reliability and Validity of Instrumented Timed Up and Go Test in Typical Adults and Elderly: A Systematic Review

IF 3.7 2区 医学 Q1 REHABILITATION Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation Pub Date : 2025-07-01 DOI:10.1016/j.apmr.2025.03.001
Jinyu Zhou PT , Qihang Yao PT , Ruihua Han PT , Patrick De Bock PT , Gabrielle Vassard-Yu PT , Ann Hallemans PhD , Lien Van Laer PhD
{"title":"Reliability and Validity of Instrumented Timed Up and Go Test in Typical Adults and Elderly: A Systematic Review","authors":"Jinyu Zhou PT ,&nbsp;Qihang Yao PT ,&nbsp;Ruihua Han PT ,&nbsp;Patrick De Bock PT ,&nbsp;Gabrielle Vassard-Yu PT ,&nbsp;Ann Hallemans PhD ,&nbsp;Lien Van Laer PhD","doi":"10.1016/j.apmr.2025.03.001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><div>To summarize the available literature investigating the reliability and validity of the instrumented Timed Up and Go (iTUG) in typical adults and elderly.</div></div><div><h3>Data Sources</h3><div>Data were collected from PubMed, Web of Science, and hand searching up until July 15, 2024.</div></div><div><h3>Study Selection</h3><div>English-language studies investigating the reliability and validity of the 3-meter version of the iTUG in typical adults and elderly were included. Eligibility was blindly reviewed by 2 reviewers.</div></div><div><h3>Data Extraction</h3><div>Data on demographics, settings, reliability, and validity of the iTUG were independently extracted by 2 reviewers. The methodological quality was blindly assessed by 2 reviewers using the Consensus-Based Standards for the Selection of Health Status Measurement Instruments tools, and the certainty of evidence was evaluated by the modified Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Developement and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.</div></div><div><h3>Data Synthesis</h3><div>Nineteen studies were included investigating 1729 participants, of which 334 were typical adults and 1395 typical elderly. For intrarater reliability (n=1 study), intraclass correlation coefficient ranged from 0.39 (95% CI, 0.30-0.50) to 0.97 (95% CI, 0.95-0.98), test-retest reliability (n=2 studies) from 0.27 (95% CI, −0.47 to 0.63) to 0.89 (95% CI, 0.78-0.95), and interrater reliability (n=1 study) generally sufficient from 0.929 to 0.99 (CI not reported). One study on criterion validity showed sufficient agreement (intraclass correlation coefficient &gt;0.7) with the criterion standard for most outcome measures, except for 3 outcome measures measuring time of turn. Moreover, 12 studies used iTUG to predict cognitive decline (area under the curve [AUC] = 0.80), maximal mobility performance (<em>R</em><sup>2</sup>=0.278), physical function (AUC ≤0.75), or falls [(AUC ≤0.853 (95% CI, 0.759-0.948)].</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>iTUG can be a reliable and valid tool for assessing mobility in adults and elderly. However, the complexity and nonstandardization of outcome measures reduce the reliability and validity of iTUG, which needs to be addressed in future research.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":8313,"journal":{"name":"Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation","volume":"106 7","pages":"Pages 1092-1107"},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0003999325005453","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective

To summarize the available literature investigating the reliability and validity of the instrumented Timed Up and Go (iTUG) in typical adults and elderly.

Data Sources

Data were collected from PubMed, Web of Science, and hand searching up until July 15, 2024.

Study Selection

English-language studies investigating the reliability and validity of the 3-meter version of the iTUG in typical adults and elderly were included. Eligibility was blindly reviewed by 2 reviewers.

Data Extraction

Data on demographics, settings, reliability, and validity of the iTUG were independently extracted by 2 reviewers. The methodological quality was blindly assessed by 2 reviewers using the Consensus-Based Standards for the Selection of Health Status Measurement Instruments tools, and the certainty of evidence was evaluated by the modified Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Developement and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.

Data Synthesis

Nineteen studies were included investigating 1729 participants, of which 334 were typical adults and 1395 typical elderly. For intrarater reliability (n=1 study), intraclass correlation coefficient ranged from 0.39 (95% CI, 0.30-0.50) to 0.97 (95% CI, 0.95-0.98), test-retest reliability (n=2 studies) from 0.27 (95% CI, −0.47 to 0.63) to 0.89 (95% CI, 0.78-0.95), and interrater reliability (n=1 study) generally sufficient from 0.929 to 0.99 (CI not reported). One study on criterion validity showed sufficient agreement (intraclass correlation coefficient >0.7) with the criterion standard for most outcome measures, except for 3 outcome measures measuring time of turn. Moreover, 12 studies used iTUG to predict cognitive decline (area under the curve [AUC] = 0.80), maximal mobility performance (R2=0.278), physical function (AUC ≤0.75), or falls [(AUC ≤0.853 (95% CI, 0.759-0.948)].

Conclusions

iTUG can be a reliable and valid tool for assessing mobility in adults and elderly. However, the complexity and nonstandardization of outcome measures reduce the reliability and validity of iTUG, which needs to be addressed in future research.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
仪器计时起来和去测试在典型成人和老年人中的信度和效度:系统评价。
目的:总结现有文献,探讨仪器计时起跑(iTUG)在典型成人和老年人中的信度和效度。数据来源:截止到2024年7月15日,数据收集自PubMed、Web of Science和人工搜索。研究选择:纳入调查典型成人和老年人3米版本iTUG信度和效度的英语研究。合格性由两名审稿人盲目审查。数据提取:iTUG的人口统计、设置、信度和效度数据由两名审稿人独立提取。方法学质量由两位审稿人使用COSMIN工具进行盲目评价,证据的确定性采用改进的GRADE方法进行评价。数据综合:包括19项研究,调查了1729名参与者,其中334名典型成年人和1395名典型老年人。对于评估内信度(n = 1项研究),ICC范围为0.39 (CI 95%, 0.30至0.50)至0.97 (CI 95%, 0.95至0.98),测试-重测信度(n = 2项研究)范围为0.27 (CI 95%, -0.47至0.63)至0.89 (CI 95%, 0.78至0.95),评估间信度(n = 1项研究)一般足够,从0.929至0.99 (CI未报道)。一项关于标准效度的研究显示,除了三个测量回合时间的结果测量外,大多数结果测量指标与金标准有充分的一致性(ICC > 0.7)。此外,有12项研究使用iTUG预测认知能力下降(AUC = 0.80)、最大活动能力(R2 = 0.278)、身体功能(AUC高达0.75)或跌倒(AUC高达0.853 (CI 95%, 0.759至0.948))。结论:iTUG是评估成人和老年人活动能力的可靠和有效的工具。然而,结果测量的复杂性和非标准化降低了iTUG的信度和效度,这需要在未来的研究中加以解决。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.20
自引率
4.70%
发文量
495
审稿时长
38 days
期刊介绍: The Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation publishes original, peer-reviewed research and clinical reports on important trends and developments in physical medicine and rehabilitation and related fields. This international journal brings researchers and clinicians authoritative information on the therapeutic utilization of physical, behavioral and pharmaceutical agents in providing comprehensive care for individuals with chronic illness and disabilities. Archives began publication in 1920, publishes monthly, and is the official journal of the American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine. Its papers are cited more often than any other rehabilitation journal.
期刊最新文献
Validity, Test-Retest Reliability, and Learning Effect on the 1-Minute Sit-To-Stand Test in Individuals With Heart Failure. Measuring Health-Related Quality of Life in Upper Extremity Vascularized Composite Allotransplantation: Development of New Patient-Reported Outcome Items for Hand Transplant. Physical Therapist Engagement With a Home Exercise Prescription Platform: A Mixed Methods Study. Three-Point Perspective on Poststroke Fatigue: Grounded Theory Study. Relationship Between Depression During Inpatient Rehabilitation and Health, Participation, and Satisfaction With Life at 1-Year Postinjury for Individuals With Spinal Cord Injury: Findings From the Spinal Cord Injury Model Systems Database.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1