Validity and Reliability of the Thai Version of the Gait Assessment and Intervention Tool (G.A.I.T.)

IF 1.8 Q3 PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE Stroke Research and Treatment Pub Date : 2020-08-01 DOI:10.1155/2020/1710534
Jittima Saengsuwan, P. Sirasaporn
{"title":"Validity and Reliability of the Thai Version of the Gait Assessment and Intervention Tool (G.A.I.T.)","authors":"Jittima Saengsuwan, P. Sirasaporn","doi":"10.1155/2020/1710534","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction. The Gait Assessment and Intervention Tool (G.A.I.T.) is well-accepted for determining changes in gait quality in neurological patients. This study is aimed at translating the G.A.I.T. to Thai and to examine its validity and reliability. Methods. The Thai translation and back-translation into English were done according to international guidelines. Sixty-eight patients with subacute to chronic stroke were recruited. Concurrent validity was determined by the correlation coefficient between the Thai G.A.I.T. scale and a comfortable vs. fast gait speed. The convergent validity was determined by the correlation coefficient between the Thai G.A.I.T. and the lower extremity Motricity Index, the Functional Ambulation Category (FAC), and the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS). Interrater reliability was assessed using videos of 68 patients analysed by two independent raters. Each rater was randomly assigned to rescore the Thai G.A.I.T. for each patient over at least two weeks to assess intrarater reliability. Results. The concurrent validity of the Thai G.A.I.T. vs. the respective comfortable and fast gait speeds was excellent (Rs=−0.79 and Rs=−0.68, p<0.001). The respective convergent validity with the lower extremity Motricity Index, NIHSS, and FAC was Rs=−0.62, 0.57, and -0.51, respectively. The respective inter- and intrarater reliabilities were excellent (ICC=0.93, 95% CI 0.88-0.96 and 0.95, 95% CI 0.91-0.97). Conclusion. A Thai version of the G.A.I.T. was developed, and its validity and reliability for use among patients with subacute to chronic stroke were established. Further work regarding the responsiveness of the tool is needed.","PeriodicalId":22054,"journal":{"name":"Stroke Research and Treatment","volume":"10 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2020-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Stroke Research and Treatment","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/1710534","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Introduction. The Gait Assessment and Intervention Tool (G.A.I.T.) is well-accepted for determining changes in gait quality in neurological patients. This study is aimed at translating the G.A.I.T. to Thai and to examine its validity and reliability. Methods. The Thai translation and back-translation into English were done according to international guidelines. Sixty-eight patients with subacute to chronic stroke were recruited. Concurrent validity was determined by the correlation coefficient between the Thai G.A.I.T. scale and a comfortable vs. fast gait speed. The convergent validity was determined by the correlation coefficient between the Thai G.A.I.T. and the lower extremity Motricity Index, the Functional Ambulation Category (FAC), and the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS). Interrater reliability was assessed using videos of 68 patients analysed by two independent raters. Each rater was randomly assigned to rescore the Thai G.A.I.T. for each patient over at least two weeks to assess intrarater reliability. Results. The concurrent validity of the Thai G.A.I.T. vs. the respective comfortable and fast gait speeds was excellent (Rs=−0.79 and Rs=−0.68, p<0.001). The respective convergent validity with the lower extremity Motricity Index, NIHSS, and FAC was Rs=−0.62, 0.57, and -0.51, respectively. The respective inter- and intrarater reliabilities were excellent (ICC=0.93, 95% CI 0.88-0.96 and 0.95, 95% CI 0.91-0.97). Conclusion. A Thai version of the G.A.I.T. was developed, and its validity and reliability for use among patients with subacute to chronic stroke were established. Further work regarding the responsiveness of the tool is needed.
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
泰语版步态评估与干预工具的效度与信度研究
介绍。步态评估和干预工具(G.A.I.T.)被广泛接受用于确定神经系统患者的步态质量变化。本研究的目的是翻译通用外语教学量表为泰语,并检验其效度和信度。方法。泰语翻译和反译成英语是根据国际准则完成的。共招募了68例亚急性至慢性脑卒中患者。并发效度由泰式G.A.I.T.量表与舒适与快速步态速度之间的相关系数决定。通过泰国G.A.I.T.与下肢运动指数、功能行走分类(FAC)、美国国立卫生研究院卒中量表(NIHSS)的相关系数来确定收敛效度。使用68名患者的视频,由两位独立的评分者分析,评估了评分者之间的可靠性。每个评分员被随机分配为每位患者在至少两周内重新评分泰国G.A.I.T.,以评估术后可靠性。结果。泰式G.A.I.T.与各自的舒适和快速步态速度的并发效度非常好(Rs= - 0.79和Rs= - 0.68, p<0.001)。与下肢运动指数、NIHSS和FAC的收敛效度分别为- 0.62、0.57和-0.51。各自的内部和内部信度都很好(ICC=0.93, 95% CI 0.88-0.96和0.95,95% CI 0.91-0.97)。结论。开发了泰国版的G.A.I.T.,并确定了其在亚急性至慢性中风患者中使用的有效性和可靠性。需要进一步研究该工具的响应性。
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
Stroke Research and Treatment
Stroke Research and Treatment PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE-
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
14
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊最新文献
Effect of Increasing or Decreasing Use of Polypharmacy on Recovery of Activities of Daily Living in Patients With Stroke in the Recovery-Phase Rehabilitation Ward: A Retrospective Cohort Study Using Propensity Score Matching. Does Action Observation of the Whole Task Influence Mirror Neuron System and Upper Limb Muscle Activity Better Than Part Task in People With Stroke? Evaluation of Contralateral Limb Cross Education and High-Frequency Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation on Functional Indices of the Affected Upper Limb in Subacute Phase of Stroke External Validation of SAFE Score to Predict Atrial Fibrillation Diagnosis after Ischemic Stroke: A Retrospective Multicenter Study Modeling Survival Time to Death among Stroke Patients at Jimma University Medical Center, Southwest Ethiopia: A Retrospective Cohort Study.
×
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