Investigation of the validity and reliability of the 3-meter backward walk test in high functional level adults with lower limb amputation.
Journal
Prosthetics and orthotics international
ISSN: 1746-1553
Titre abrégé: Prosthet Orthot Int
Pays: France
ID NLM: 7707720
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
12 Dec 2023
12 Dec 2023
Historique:
received:
06
09
2022
accepted:
22
10
2023
medline:
13
12
2023
pubmed:
13
12
2023
entrez:
13
12
2023
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
Backward walk training has an important place in the rehabilitation programs of lower extremity amputees. This study aimed to investigate the test-retest validity and reliability of the 3-meter backward walk test (3MBWT), minimal detectable change, and the cutoff time in high functional level adults with lower limb amputations (LLAs). Adults with LLA (n = 30) and healthy adults (n = 29) were included in the study. This is a randomized cross-sectional study. The Modified Fall Efficacy Score, Rivermead Mobility Index, and Timed Up and Go test with the 3MBWT were used to evaluate the concurrent validity of the test. The second evaluation (retest) was performed by the same physiotherapist 1 week following the first evaluation (test). The validity was assessed by correlating the 3MBWT times with the scores of other measures and by comparing the 3MBWT times between adults with LLA and healthy adults. Test-retest reliability of the 3MBWT was excellent. The intraclass correlation coefficient for the 3MBWT was 0.950. The standard error of measurement and minimal detectable change values were 0.38 and 0.53, respectively. A moderate correlation was found between the 3MBWT, Modified Fall Efficacy Score, Timed Up and Go test, and Rivermead Mobility Index (p < 0.001). Significant differences in the 3MBWT times were found between adults with LLA and healthy controls (p < 0.001). The cutoff time of 3.11 s discriminates healthy adults from high functional level adults with LLA. The 3MBWT was determined to be valid, reliable, and easy-to-apply tool in high functional level adults with LLA. This assessment is a useful and practical measurement for dynamic balance in high functional level adults with LLA.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Backward walk training has an important place in the rehabilitation programs of lower extremity amputees.
OBJECTIVE
OBJECTIVE
This study aimed to investigate the test-retest validity and reliability of the 3-meter backward walk test (3MBWT), minimal detectable change, and the cutoff time in high functional level adults with lower limb amputations (LLAs). Adults with LLA (n = 30) and healthy adults (n = 29) were included in the study.
STUDY DESIGN
METHODS
This is a randomized cross-sectional study.
METHODS
METHODS
The Modified Fall Efficacy Score, Rivermead Mobility Index, and Timed Up and Go test with the 3MBWT were used to evaluate the concurrent validity of the test. The second evaluation (retest) was performed by the same physiotherapist 1 week following the first evaluation (test). The validity was assessed by correlating the 3MBWT times with the scores of other measures and by comparing the 3MBWT times between adults with LLA and healthy adults.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Test-retest reliability of the 3MBWT was excellent. The intraclass correlation coefficient for the 3MBWT was 0.950. The standard error of measurement and minimal detectable change values were 0.38 and 0.53, respectively. A moderate correlation was found between the 3MBWT, Modified Fall Efficacy Score, Timed Up and Go test, and Rivermead Mobility Index (p < 0.001). Significant differences in the 3MBWT times were found between adults with LLA and healthy controls (p < 0.001). The cutoff time of 3.11 s discriminates healthy adults from high functional level adults with LLA.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The 3MBWT was determined to be valid, reliable, and easy-to-apply tool in high functional level adults with LLA. This assessment is a useful and practical measurement for dynamic balance in high functional level adults with LLA.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38091353
doi: 10.1097/PXR.0000000000000310
pii: 00006479-990000000-00205
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2023 International Society for Prosthetics and Orthotics.
Références
Ku PX, Abu Osman NA, Wan Abas WAB. Balance control in lower extremity amputees during quiet standing: a systematic review. Gait Posture 2014;39:672–682.
Miller WC, Speechley M, Deathe B. The prevalence and risk factors of falling and fear of falling among lower extremity amputees. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2001;82:1031–1037.
Schafer ZA, Perry JL, Vanicek N. A personalised exercise programme for individuals with lower limb amputation reduces falls and improves gait biomechanics: A block randomised controlled trial. Gait Posture 2018;63:282–289.
Hunter SW, Batchelor F, Hill KD, et al. Risk factors for falls in people with a lower limb amputation: a systematic review. PM R 2017;9:170–180.e1.
Gauthier-Gagnon C, Grisé MC, Potvin D. Enabling factors related to prosthetic use by people with transtibial and transfemoral amputation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1999;80:706–713.
Cimino SR, Vijayakumar A, MacKay C, et al. Sex and gender differences in quality of life and related domains for individuals with adult acquired lower-limb amputation: a scoping review. Disabil Rehabil 2021;44:6899–6925.
Sawers A, Hafner BJ. Using clinical balance tests to assess fall risk among established unilateral lower limb prosthesis users: cutoff scores and associated validity indices. PM R 2020;12:16–25.
Hart-Hughes S, Latlief GA, Phillips S, et al. A review of clinical outcome assessment instruments for gait, balance, and fall risk in persons with lower extremity amputation. Top Geriatr Rehabil 2014;30:70–76.
Clark DJ, Rose DK, Ring SA, et al. Utilization of central nervous system resources for preparation and performance of complex walking tasks in older adults. Front Aging Neurosci 2014;6:217.
Carter V, Jain T, James J, et al. The 3-m backwards walk and retrospective falls: diagnostic accuracy of a novel clinical measure. J Geriatr Phys Ther 2019;42:249–255.
Lee M, Kim J, Son J, et al. Kinematic and kinetic analysis during forward and backward walking. Gait Posture 2013;38:674–678.
Kastavelis D, Mukherjee M, Decker Leslie M, et al. Variability of lower extremity joint kinematics during backward walking in a virtual environment. Nonlinear Dynamics Psychol Life Sci 2010;14:165–178.
Taulbee L, Yada T, Graham L, et al. Use of backward walking speed to screen dynamic balance and mobility deficits in older adults living independently in the community. J Geriatr Phys Ther 2021;44:189–197.
Abit Kocaman A, Aydoğan Arslan S, Uğurlu K, et al. Validity and reliability of the 3-meter backward walk test in individuals with stroke. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis 2021;30:105462.
Von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, et al. The strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Lancet 2007;370:1453–1457.
Collen FM, Wade DT, Robb GF, et al. The rivermead mobility index: a further development of the rivermead motor assessment. Int Disabil Stud 1991;13:50–54.
Tinetti ME, Richman D, Powell L. Falls efficacy as a measure of fear of falling. J Gerontol 1990;45:239–243.
Schoppen T, Boonstra A, Groothoff JW, et al. The timed “up and go” test: reliability and validity in persons with unilateral lower limb amputation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1999;80:825–828.
Lexell JE, Downham DY. How to assess the reliability of measurements in rehabilitation. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2005;84:719–723.
Akın B, Emiroğlu ON. Validity and reliability of rivermead mobility index (RMI) Turkish form in the elderly. J Turk Geriatrics 2007;10:124–130.
Ryall N, Eyres SB, Neumann VC, et al. Is the rivermead mobility index appropriate to measure mobility in lower limb amputees? Disabil Rehabil 2003;25:143–153.
Hill KD, Schwarz JA, Kalogeropoulos AJ, et al. Fear of falling revisited. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1996;77:1025–1029.
Cb O, Bilgili N, Kitis Y. Validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the modified falls efficacy scale of in older adults. J Gerontol Geriatr Res 2018;7:494.
Asuero AG, Sayago A, Gonzalez AG. The correlation coefficient: An overview. Crit Rev Anal Chem 2006;36:41–59.
Kumar R, Indrayan A. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve for medical researchers. Indian Pediatr 2011;48:277–287.
Greiner M, Pfeiffer D, Smith R. Principles and practical application of the receiver-operating characteristic analysis for diagnostic tests. Prev Vet Med 2000;45:23–41.
Thorstensson A. How is the normal locomotor program modified to produce backward walking? Exp Brain Res 1986;61:664–668.
Van Deursen RW, Flynn TW, McCrory JL, et al. Does a single control mechanism exist for both forward and backward walking? Gait Posture 1998;7:214–224.
Jansen KF, De Groote F, Massaad F, et al. Similar muscles contribute to horizontal and vertical acceleration of center of mass in forward and backward walking: Implications for neural control. J Neurophysiol 2012;107:3385–3396.
Unver B, Sevik K, Yarar HA, et al. Reliability of 3-m backward walk test in patients with primary total knee arthroplasty. J Knee Surg 2020;33:589–592.
Özden F, Coşkun G, Bakırhan S. The test-retest reliability, concurrent validity and minimal detectable change of the 3-m backward walking test in patients with total hip arthroplasty. J Arthrosc Jt Surg 2021;8:288–292.