Timed "Up & Go" Dual-Task Tests: Age- and Sex-Specific Reference Values and Test-Retest Reliability in Cognitively Healthy Controls

Hanna B Åhman, Lars Berglund, Ylva Cedervall, Vilmantas Giedraitis, Kevin J McKee, Erik Rosendahl, Anna Cristina Åberg, Hanna B Åhman, Lars Berglund, Ylva Cedervall, Vilmantas Giedraitis, Kevin J McKee, Erik Rosendahl, Anna Cristina Åberg

Abstract

Objective: The purpose of the study was to establish reference values for the Uppsala-Dalarna Dementia and Gait (UDDGait) Timed "Up & Go" dual-task (TUGdt) test variables in cognitively healthy adults and to assess these variables' test-retest reliability.

Methods: For reference values, 166 participants were recruited with approximately equal numbers and proportions of women and men in the age groups 50 to 59, 60 to 69, 70 to 79, and 80+ years (mean age = 70 years, age range = 50-91 years, 51% women). For reliability testing, 43 individuals (mean age = 69 years, age range = 50-89 years, 51% women) were recruited. Two dt tests were carried out: TUGdt naming animals and TUGdt months backward, representing 8 test variables: time scores, costs (the relative difference between single-task and dt time scores), "number of animals," "number of months," "animals/10 seconds ," and "months/10 seconds ." Reference ranges for the variables were established by quantile regression in age- and sex-specific groups. For reliability, intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs), standard error of measurement, minimal detectable change, and Bland-Altman plots were used.

Results: Reference values for the TUGdt test variables are presented for the 2.5th and 97.5th percentiles. The reliability of TUGdt time scores was excellent (ICCs between 0.85 and 0.86). "Number of animals" and "animals/10 seconds" as well as "months/10 seconds" showed fair to good levels of reliability (ICCs between 0.45 and 0.58), whereas the reliability for both cost measures and "number of months" was poor (ICCs between 0.34 and 0.39).

Conclusion: Normative reference values, potentially useful for clinical and research purposes, were presented in 4 age- and sex-specific groups from 50 years and older. Reliability for the test variables varied between poor and excellent, the lower estimates partly explained by some variables being the ratio of 2 other variables. In UDDGait, TUGdt tests are intended for diagnostic and predictive purposes, for which these tests are promising and require further investigations.

Impact: Normative reference values and test-retest reliability results for the UDDGait TUGdt test variables were presented. These results should be useful for both clinical and research purposes.

Keywords: Cognitive Function; Dual-Task; Reference Values; Reliability; Timed Up & Go.

© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Physical Therapy Association.

Figures

Figure
Figure
Bland–Altman plots for the Timed “Up & Go” dual-task (TUGdt) naming animals (NA) time score (A), TUGdt months backward (MB) time score (B), TUGdt NA animals/10 s (C), and TUGdt MB months/10 s (D). Reference lines represent the median difference and limits of agreement (2.5th and 97.5th percentiles of differences).

References

    1. World Health Organization . Dementia: a public health priority. 2012. Accessed 2 June, 2021. .
    1. Laske C, Sohrabi HR, Frost SM, et al. Innovative diagnostic tools for early detection of Alzheimer's disease. Alzheimers Dement. 2015;11:561–578.
    1. Muir SW, Speechley M, Wells J, Borrie M, Gopaul K, Montero-Odasso M. Gait assessment in mild cognitive impairment and Alzheimer's disease: the effect of dual-task challenges across the cognitive spectrum. Gait Posture. 2012;35:96–100.
    1. MacAulay RK, Wagner MT, Szeles D, Milano NJ. Improving sensitivity to detect mild cognitive impairment: cognitive load dual-task gait speed assessment. J Int Neuropsychol Soc. 2017;23:493–501.
    1. Cullen S, Borrie M, Carroll S, et al. Are cognitive subtypes associated with dual-task gait performance in a clinical setting? J Alzheimers Dis. 2019;71:S57–S64.
    1. Beurskens R, Bock O. Age-related deficits of dual-task walking: a review. Neural Plast. 2012;2012:131608.
    1. Brustio PR, Magistro D, Zecca M, Rabaglietti E, Liubicich ME. Age-related decrements in dual-task performance: comparison of different mobility and cognitive tasks. A cross sectional study. PLoS One. 2017;12:e0181698.
    1. Bahureksa L, Najafi B, Saleh A, et al. The impact of mild cognitive impairment on gait and balance: a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies using instrumented assessment. Gerontology. 2017;63:67–83.
    1. Perry RJ, Hodges JR. Attention and executive deficits in Alzheimer's disease. A critical review. Brain. 1999;122:383–404.
    1. Srygley JM, Mirelman A, Herman T, Giladi N, Hausdorff JM. When does walking alter thinking? Age and task associated findings. Brain Res. 2009;1253:92–99.
    1. Cedervall Y, Stenberg AM, Åhman HB, et al. Timed up-and-go dual-task testing in the assessment of cognitive function: a mixed methods observational study for development of the UDDGait protocol. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17:1715.
    1. Podsiadlo D, Richardson S. The Timed “Up & Go”: a test of basic functional mobility for frail elderly persons. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1991;39:142–148.
    1. Åhman HB, Giedraitis V, Cedervall Y, et al. Dual-task performance and neurodegeneration: correlations between timed up-and-go dual-task test outcomes and Alzheimer's disease cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers. J Alzheimers Dis. 2019;71:S75–s83.
    1. Åhman HB, Cedervall Y, Kilander L, et al. Dual-task tests discriminate between dementia, mild cognitive impairment, subjective cognitive impairment, and healthy controls - a cross-sectional cohort study. BMC Geriatr. 2020;20:258.
    1. Åhman HB, Berglund L, Cedervall Y, et al. Dual-task tests predict conversion to dementia-a prospective memory-clinic-based cohort study. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17:8129.
    1. Harris EK, Boyd JC. Statistical Bases of Reference Values in Laboratory Medicine. New York: Marcel Dekker, Inc; 1995.
    1. Bland JM, Altman DG. A note on the use of the intraclass correlation coefficient in the evaluation of agreement between two methods of measurement. Comput Biol Med. 1990;20:337–340.
    1. Hofheinz M, Schusterschitz C. Dual task interference in estimating the risk of falls and measuring change: a comparative, psychometric study of four measurements. Clin Rehabil. 2010;24:831–842.
    1. Muhaidat J, Kerr A, Evans JJ, Skelton DA. The test-retest reliability of gait-related dual task performance in community-dwelling fallers and non-fallers. Gait Posture. 2013;38:43–50.
    1. Smith E, Walsh L, Doyle J, Greene B, Blake C. The reliability of the quantitative timed up and go test (QTUG) measured over five consecutive days under single and dual-task conditions in community dwelling older adults. Gait Posture. 2016;43:239–244.
    1. McCulloch KL, Mercer V, Giuliani C, Marshall S. Development of a clinical measure of dual-task performance in walking: reliability and preliminary validity of the walking and remembering test. J Geriatr Phys Ther. 2009;32:2–9.
    1. Yang L, Liao LR, Lam FMH, He CQ, Pang MYC. Psychometric properties of dual-task balance assessments for older adults: a systematic review. Maturitas. 2015;80:359–369.
    1. Donoghue OA, Savva GM, Börsch-Supan A, Kenny RA. Reliability, measurement error and minimum detectable change in mobility measures: a cohort study of community-dwelling adults aged 50 years and over in Ireland. BMJ Open. 2019;9:e030475.
    1. Nordin E, Rosendahl E, Lundin-Olsson L. Timed "up & go" test: reliability in older people dependent in activities of daily living--focus on cognitive state. Phys Ther. 2006;86:646–655.
    1. Bird CM, Papadopoulou K, Ricciardelli P, Rossor MN, Cipolotti L. Monitoring cognitive changes: psychometric properties of six cognitive tests. Br J Clin Psychol. 2004;43:197–210.
    1. Harrison JE, Buxton P, Husain M, Wise R. Short test of semantic and phonological fluency: normal performance, validity and test-retest reliability. Br J Clin Psychol. 2000;39:181–191.
    1. Ostberg P, Hansson V, Haagg S. Adult norms and test-retest reliability for the months backward test: durational and response accuracy measures. Logoped Phoniatr Vocol. 2012;37:11–17.
    1. Meagher J, Leonard M, Donoghue L, et al. Months backward test: a review of its use in clinical studies. World J Psychiatr. 2015;5:305–314.
    1. Mokkink LB. COSMIN Study Design Checklist for patient-reported outcome measurement instruments. 2020. Accessed November 27, 2020. .
    1. COSMIN (COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments) . COSMIN research projects. 2020. Accessed March 19, 2021. .
    1. Folstein MF, Folstein SE, McHugh PR. "Mini-mental state". A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. J Psychiatr Res. 1975;12:189–198.
    1. Tallberg IM, Ivachova E, Jones Tinghag K, Ostberg P. Swedish norms for word fluency tests: FAS, animals and verbs. Scand J Psychol. 2008;49:479–485.
    1. Tombaugh TN. Trail making test a and B: normative data stratified by age and education. Arch Clin Neuropsychol. 2004;19:203–214.
    1. Park J, Jeong E, Seomun G. The clock drawing test: a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy. J Adv Nurs. 2018;74:2742–2754.
    1. Almeida OP, Almeida SA. Short versions of the geriatric depression scale: a study of their validity for the diagnosis of a major depressive episode according to ICD-10 and DSM-IV. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 1999;14:858–865.
    1. Aberg AC, Lindmark B, Lithell H. Development and reliability of the general motor function assessment scale (GMF)--a performance-based measure of function-related dependence, pain and insecurity. Disabil Rehabil. 2003;25:462–472.
    1. Bohannon RW, Larkin PA, Cook AC, Gear J, Singer J. Decrease in timed balance test scores with aging. Phy Ther. 1984;64:1067–1070.
    1. Bohannon RW. Test-retest reliability of measurements of hand-grip strength obtained by dynamometry from older adults: a systematic review of research in the PubMed database. J Frailty Aging. 2017;6:83–87.
    1. Wei Y, Pere A, Koenker R, He X. Quantile regression methods for reference growth charts. Stat Med. 2006;25:1369–1382.
    1. Lê Cook B, Manning WG. Thinking beyond the mean: a practical guide for using quantile regression methods for health services research. Shanghai Arch Psychiatry. 2013;25:55–59.
    1. Koo TK, Li MY. A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. J Chiropr Med. 2016;15:155–163.
    1. Chernick R. Bootstrap Methods: A Practitioner's Guide. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc; 1999.
    1. Bland JM, Altman DG. Measuring agreement in method comparison studies. Stat Methods Med Res. 1999;8:135–160.
    1. R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. 2020. Accessed 2 June 2021.
    1. Rosner BA. Fundamentals of Biostatistics. Boston, MA: Thomson-Brooks/Cole; 2006.
    1. Bohannon RW. Reference values for the timed up and go test: a descriptive meta-analysis. J Geriatr Phys Ther. 2006;29:64–68.
    1. Steffen TM, Hacker TA, Mollinger L. Age- and gender-related test performance in community-dwelling elderly people: six-minute walk test, berg balance scale, timed up & go test, and gait speeds. Phys Ther. 2002;82:128–137.
    1. Pondal M, del Ser T. Normative data and determinants for the timed "up and go" test in a population-based sample of elderly individuals without gait disturbances. J Geriatr Phys Ther. 2008;31:57–63.
    1. Yang L, He C, Pang MY. Reliability and validity of dual-task mobility assessments in people with chronic stroke. PLoS One. 2016;11:e0147833.
    1. Nordhamn K, Södergren E, Olsson E, Karlström B, Vessby B, Berglund L. Reliability of anthropometric measurements in overweight and lean subjects: consequences for correlations between anthropometric and other variables. IJO. 2000;24:652–657.
    1. Pettersson AF, Olsson E, Wahlund LO. Effect of divided attention on gait in subjects with and without cognitive impairment. J Geriatr Psychiatry Neurol. 2007;20:58–62.
    1. Montero-Odasso M, Casas A, Hansen KT, et al. Quantitative gait analysis under dual-task in older people with mild cognitive impairment: a reliability study. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2009;6:35.
    1. Lemke NC, Wiloth S, Werner C, Hauer K. Validity, test-retest reliability, sensitivity to change and feasibility of motor-cognitive dual task assessments in patients with dementia. Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2017;70:169–179.
    1. Venema DM, Hansen H, High R, Goetsch T, Siu KC. Minimal detectable change in dual-task cost for older adults with and without cognitive impairment. J Geriatr Phys Ther. 2019;42:E32–E38.
    1. Berglund L. Regression dilution bias: tools for correction methods and sample size calculation. Ups J Med Sci. 2012;117:279–283.
    1. Kottner J, Audigé L, Brorson S, et al. Guidelines for reporting reliability and agreement studies (GRRAS) were proposed. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64:96–106.
    1. Terwee CB, Bot SD, de Boer MR, et al. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60:34–42.
    1. Staffa SJ, Kohane DS, Zurakowski D. Quantile regression and its applications: a primer for anesthesiologists. Anesth Analg. 2019;128:820–830.
    1. Giavarina D. Understanding Bland Altman analysis. Biochem Med (Zagreb). 2015;25:141–151.
    1. Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, et al. The COSMIN study reached international consensus on taxonomy, terminology, and definitions of measurement properties for health-related patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63:737–745.

Source: PubMed

赞助者和合作者

医疗条件

药物干预

3
订阅