Methods of 10-Meter Walk Test and Repercussions for Reliability Obtained in Typically Developing Children.

IF 1.5 Q3 REHABILITATION Rehabilitation Research and Practice Pub Date : 2020-08-20 eCollection Date: 2020-01-01 DOI:10.1155/2020/4209812
Cyntia R J A de Baptista, Amanda M Vicente, Mariana A Souza, Juliana Cardoso, Vanessa M Ramalho, Ana C Mattiello-Sverzut
{"title":"Methods of 10-Meter Walk Test and Repercussions for Reliability Obtained in Typically Developing Children.","authors":"Cyntia R J A de Baptista,&nbsp;Amanda M Vicente,&nbsp;Mariana A Souza,&nbsp;Juliana Cardoso,&nbsp;Vanessa M Ramalho,&nbsp;Ana C Mattiello-Sverzut","doi":"10.1155/2020/4209812","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Research and clinical settings use the 10-meter walk test (10MWT) to measure locomotor capacity with considerable methodological diversity. Comparison between healthy and disabled children is frequent; however, the reproducibility of 10MWT using different methods is unknown.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This study analysed intrasubject, test-retest reliability, and agreement of four methods of 10MWT, exploring the influence of pace, acceleration-deceleration phases, and anthropometric measurements when calculating mean velocity.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This cross-sectional study evaluated 120 typical children, both sexes, aged 6, 8, 10, and 12 (<i>n</i> = 30 for each age). The mean times and velocities of the path (10 m) and middle path (6 m) obtained at a self-selected and fast pace were analysed. Initial assessment and another after seven days recorded three measurements per method (sV6 = self-selected pace and 6 m; sV10 = self-selected pace and 10 m; fV6 = fast pace and 6 m; fV10 = fast pace and 10 m). Interclass correlation coefficient (ICC), multiple regression, and Snedecor-F test (5% significance level) were used.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The fV10 method had high intrasubject reliability for all tested ages (0.70 < ICC > 0.89); sV10 exhibited high intrasubject reliability for ages 6, 8, and 12 (0.70 < ICC > 0.89) and moderate for age 10 (0.50 < ICC < 0.69).Test-retest reliability at sV6 and fV6 did not reach high ICC in any tested ages. The test-retest reliability at sV10 and fV10 was moderate for ages 6, 8, and 12 (0.50 < ICC > 0.69) and poor for age 10 (0.25 < ICC > 0.49). There was no agreement between methods: sV6 versus sV10 (mean difference = 0.91 m/s; SEM = 0.036); fV6 versus fV10 (mean difference = 1.70; SEM = 0.046). The fV6 method versus fV10 overestimated the velocity (bias = 1.70 m/s).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>For typical children, the method that ensured the highest intrasubject reliability used fast pace and 10 m. Moreover, test-retest reliability increased when adopting 10 m at both self-selected and fast pace. The methods were not equivalent but were related, and those that did not compute the entire pathway overestimated the results.</p>","PeriodicalId":45585,"journal":{"name":"Rehabilitation Research and Practice","volume":"2020 ","pages":"4209812"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2020-08-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1155/2020/4209812","citationCount":"15","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Rehabilitation Research and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/4209812","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2020/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 15

Abstract

Introduction: Research and clinical settings use the 10-meter walk test (10MWT) to measure locomotor capacity with considerable methodological diversity. Comparison between healthy and disabled children is frequent; however, the reproducibility of 10MWT using different methods is unknown.

Objectives: This study analysed intrasubject, test-retest reliability, and agreement of four methods of 10MWT, exploring the influence of pace, acceleration-deceleration phases, and anthropometric measurements when calculating mean velocity.

Methods: This cross-sectional study evaluated 120 typical children, both sexes, aged 6, 8, 10, and 12 (n = 30 for each age). The mean times and velocities of the path (10 m) and middle path (6 m) obtained at a self-selected and fast pace were analysed. Initial assessment and another after seven days recorded three measurements per method (sV6 = self-selected pace and 6 m; sV10 = self-selected pace and 10 m; fV6 = fast pace and 6 m; fV10 = fast pace and 10 m). Interclass correlation coefficient (ICC), multiple regression, and Snedecor-F test (5% significance level) were used.

Results: The fV10 method had high intrasubject reliability for all tested ages (0.70 < ICC > 0.89); sV10 exhibited high intrasubject reliability for ages 6, 8, and 12 (0.70 < ICC > 0.89) and moderate for age 10 (0.50 < ICC < 0.69).Test-retest reliability at sV6 and fV6 did not reach high ICC in any tested ages. The test-retest reliability at sV10 and fV10 was moderate for ages 6, 8, and 12 (0.50 < ICC > 0.69) and poor for age 10 (0.25 < ICC > 0.49). There was no agreement between methods: sV6 versus sV10 (mean difference = 0.91 m/s; SEM = 0.036); fV6 versus fV10 (mean difference = 1.70; SEM = 0.046). The fV6 method versus fV10 overestimated the velocity (bias = 1.70 m/s).

Conclusions: For typical children, the method that ensured the highest intrasubject reliability used fast pace and 10 m. Moreover, test-retest reliability increased when adopting 10 m at both self-selected and fast pace. The methods were not equivalent but were related, and those that did not compute the entire pathway overestimated the results.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

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
典型发育儿童10米步行测验方法及其信度影响。
简介:研究和临床设置使用10米步行测试(10MWT)来测量运动能力,方法相当多样化。健康儿童与残疾儿童之间的比较频繁;然而,10MWT使用不同方法的再现性是未知的。目的:本研究分析了四种10MWT方法的受试者内部、重测信度和一致性,探讨了速度、加减速阶段和人体测量对计算平均速度的影响。方法:本横断面研究评估了120名典型儿童,男女,年龄分别为6岁、8岁、10岁和12岁(每个年龄n = 30)。对自选快速路径(10 m)和中间路径(6 m)的平均时间和速度进行了分析。初始评估和7天后的另一次评估记录了每种方法的三次测量(sV6 =自选步速和6米;sV10 =自选步距,10米;fV6 =快节奏,6米;fV10 =快节奏和10米)。采用类间相关系数(ICC)、多元回归、snedec - f检验(5%显著性水平)。结果:fV10方法在所有被测年龄段均具有较高的受试者内信度(0.70 < ICC > 0.89);sV10在6岁、8岁和12岁表现出高的受试者内信度(0.70 < ICC > 0.89),在10岁表现出中等信度(0.50 < ICC < 0.69)。sV6和fV6的重测信度在任何测试年龄均未达到高ICC。6岁、8岁和12岁sV10和fV10的重测信度中等(0.50 < ICC > 0.69), 10岁的重测信度较差(0.25 < ICC > 0.49)。sV6和sV10方法之间没有一致性(平均差异= 0.91 m/s;Sem = 0.036);fV6 vs . fV10(平均差值= 1.70;Sem = 0.046)。与fV10相比,fV6方法高估了速度(偏差= 1.70 m/s)。结论:对于典型儿童,快速步速和10米是保证受试者内信度最高的方法。自选步距和快步距均采用10 m时,重测信度增加。这些方法不是等效的,而是相关的,那些没有计算整个路径的方法高估了结果。
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
3.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
16
审稿时长
19 weeks
期刊介绍: Rehabilitation Research and Practice is a peer-reviewed, Open Access journal that publishes original research articles, review articles, and clinical studies in all areas of physical medicine and rehabilitation. The journal focuses on improving and restoring functional ability and quality of life to those with physical impairments or disabilities. In addition, articles looking at techniques to assess and study disabling conditions will be considered.
期刊最新文献
Physical Health and Socioeconomic Status in Ambulatory Adults With Bilateral Spastic Cerebral Palsy. Comparing the Physiological Responses to the 6-Minute Walk Test, Timed Up and Go Test, and Treadmill Cardiopulmonary Exercise Test. Virtual Reality Technology for Physical and Cognitive Function Rehabilitation in People With Multiple Sclerosis. Categories of the Patient-Specific Functional Scale Activities in Chronic Neck Pain and Their Relationship to the Neck Disability Index. The NewGait Rehabilitative Device Corrects Gait Deviations in Individuals With Foot Drop.
×
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:481959085
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