This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Sherrington, C. Articles by Lord, S. R Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Sherrington, C. Articles by Lord, S. R Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Reliability of simple portable tests of physical performance in older people after hip fracture

Stephen R Lord

Prince of Wales Medical Research Institute, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia

Objective: To investigate the test–retest reliability of measures of strength, balance, gait and functional performance when used with older people following hip fracture.

Subjects: Thirty people (16 hospital inpatients and 14 community dwellers).

Design: Subjects underwent two assessments: one day apart for the hospital inpatients and one week apart for the community dwellers.

Measurement: Strength (dynamometer, sphygmomanometer, spring balance, lateral step-up ability), balance (sway-meter, Functional Reach Test, single leg stance time, Step Test), gait (timed 6-m walk with steps taken, base of support and step length), and functional performance (PPME total score and timed supine-to-sit and sit-to-stand) were measured.

Results: Eleven of the 14 continuously scaled measurement tools achieved excellent reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC)>0.75) for one or more tests. A hand-held dynamometer was found to be the tool with the highest test–retest reliability for measuring hip muscle strength (ICC (3,1) 0.86 for affected hip abduction). For measurement of knee extension strength, a spring balance (ICC (3,1) 0.94 affected leg) was the most reliable. For testing balance, the Step Test (ICC (3,1) 0.94 for stepping with affected leg) and Functional Reach Test (ICC (3,1) 0.89) had the highest test–retest reliability. The ICC (3,1) values were 0.97 for walking velocity (comfortable pace) and 0.96 for the total score of the Physical Performance and Mobility Examination.

Conclusion: The test–retest reliability of a number of simple measures of physical performance is excellent when used with this population.

Clinical Rehabilitation, Vol. 19, No. 5, 496-504 (2005)
DOI: 10.1191/0269215505cr833oa


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				A. M. Moseley, C. Sherrington, S. R. Lord, E. Barraclough, R. J. St George, and I. D. Cameron Mobility training after hip fracture: a randomised controlled trial Age Ageing, January 1, 2009; 38(1): 74 - 80. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				T. Steffen and M. Seney Test-Retest Reliability and Minimal Detectable Change on Balance and Ambulation Tests, the 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey, and the Unified Parkinson Disease Rating Scale in People With Parkinsonism Physical Therapy, June 1, 2008; 88(6): 733 - 746. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				B. Ruo, D. W. Baker, J. A. Thompson, P. K. Murray, G. M. Huber, and J. J. Sudano Jr Patients With Worse Mental Health Report More Physical Limitations After Adjustment for Physical Performance Psychosom Med, May 1, 2008; 70(4): 417 - 421. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]