Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Reliability and concurrent validity of a modified timed up and go test for healthy preschoolers

  • Original Article
  • Published:
European Journal of Pediatrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to assess the interrater and test-retest reliability and the concurrent validity of the modified timed up and go test for preschoolers. As such, we aim to determine the most suited outcome of the modified timed up and go test: the best or the average performance. Thirty-two children (age 3–5) performed three timed up and go test trials as fast as possible on two separate occasions. During the first session, two researchers recorded the time to perform the task simultaneously. For reliability analyses, intra-class correlation coefficients (ICCs) and the minimal detectable change were determined. A Pearson correlation coefficient was calculated to determine concurrent validity between the timed up and go test and the balance subscale of the Movement Assessment Battery for Children, 2nd edition. Interrater (ICC > 0.97) and test-retest (ICC > 0.75) reliability were good both for the average and the best timed up and go test performance. A minimal detectable change of 1.86 s was found for the best performance, and 2.30 s for the average performance. Only the best timed up and go test performance correlated significantly with the balance subscale of the Movement Assessment Battery for Children, 2nd edition, though fair (r = −0.347, p = 0.007).

Conclusion: The modified timed up and go test for preschoolers using the best performance is reliable and recommended to reduce standard and measurement error.

What is Known:

• A large variety of timed up and go test protocols is available for children

• The protocols differ in the instructions on walking speed (self-selected/fastest), the use of an extra motivation (e.g., touch a star on the wall) and the applied outcome (average/best performance)

What is New:

• The best timed up and go test performance induces more consistent test results between raters and sessions and also less standard and measurement error in 3- to 5-year-old children

• The best timed up and go test performance should be preferred over the average performance to achieve both reliable and valid test results in 3- to 5-year-old children

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

ICC:

Intra-class correlation coefficient

MABC-2:

Movement Assessment Battery for Children, 2nd edition

MDC:

Minimal detectable change

SEM:

Standard error of measurement

TUG:

Timed up and go test

References

  1. Nicolini-Panisson RD, Donadio MV (2013) Timed “up & go” test in children and adolescents. Rev Paul Pediatr 31(3):377–383. https://doi.org/10.1590/s0103-05822013000300016

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Verbecque E, Lobo Da Costa PH, Vereeck L, Hallemans A (2015) Psychometric properties of functional balance tests in children: a literature review. Dev Med Child Neurol 57(6):521–529. https://doi.org/10.1111/dmcn.12657

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Baque E, Barber L, Sakzewski L, Boyd RN (2017) Randomized controlled trial of web-based multimodal therapy for children with acquired brain injury to improve gross motor capacity and performance. Clin Rehabil 31(6):722–732. https://doi.org/10.1177/0269215516651980

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Cetin SY, Erel S, Bas Aslan U (2019) The effect of Tai Chi on balance and functional mobility in children with congenital sensorineural hearing loss. Disabil Rehabil:1–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638288.2018.1535629

  5. Katz-Leurer M, Rotem H, Keren O, Meyer S (2009) The effects of a “home-based” task-oriented exercise programme on motor and balance performance in children with spastic cerebral palsy and severe traumatic brain injury. Clin Rehabil 23(8):714–724. https://doi.org/10.1177/0269215509335293

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Podsiadlo D, Richardson S (1991) The timed “up & go”: a test of basic functional mobility for frail elderly persons. J Am Geriatr Soc 39(2):142–148

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Verbecque E, Schepens K, There J, Schepens B, Klingels K, Hallemans A (2019) The timed up and go test in children: does protocol choice matter? A systematic review. Pediatr Phys Ther 31(1):22–31. https://doi.org/10.1097/pep.0000000000000558

  8. Butz SM, Sweeney JK, Roberts PL, Rauh MJ (2015) Relationships among age, gender, anthropmetric characteristics, and dynamic balance in children 5 to 12 years old. Pediatr Phys Ther 27(2):126–133. https://doi.org/10.1097/pep.0000000000000128

  9. Itzkowitz A, Kaplan S, Doyle M, Weingarten G, Lieberstein M, Covino F, Vialu C (2016) Timed up and go: reference data for children who are school age. Pediatr Phys Ther 28(2):239–246. https://doi.org/10.1097/pep.0000000000000239

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Williams EN, Carroll SG, Reddihough DS, Phillips BA, Galea MP (2005) Investigation of the timed ‘up & go’ test in children. Dev Med Child Neurol 47(8):518–524

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Habib Z, Westcott S, Valvano J (1999) Assessment of balance abilities in Pakistani children: a cultural perspective. Pediatr Phys Ther 11:73–82

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Nicolini-Panisson RD, Donadio MV (2014) Normative values for the timed ‘up and go’ test in children and adolescents and validation for individuals with down syndrome. Dev Med Child Neurol 56(5):490–497. https://doi.org/10.1111/dmcn.12290

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Verbecque E, Vereeck L, Boudewyns A, Van de Heyning P, Hallemans A (2016) A modified version of the timed up and go test for children who are preschoolers. Pediatr Phys Ther 28(4):409–415. https://doi.org/10.1097/pep.0000000000000293

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Baque E, Barber L, Sakzewski L, Boyd RN (2016) Test-re-test reproducibility of activity capacity measures for children with an acquired brain injury. Brain Inj 30(9):1143–1149. https://doi.org/10.3109/02699052.2016.1165869

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Carey H, Martin K, Combs-Miller S, Heathcock JC (2016) Reliability and responsiveness of the timed up and go test in children with cerebral palsy. Pediatr Phys Ther 28(4):401–408. https://doi.org/10.1097/pep.0000000000000301

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Newman MA, Hirsch MA, Peindl RD, Habet NA, Tsai TJ, Runyon MS, Huynh T, Zheng N (2018) Reliability of the sub-components of the instrumented timed up and go test in ambulatory children with traumatic brain injury and typically developed controls. Gait Posture 63:248–253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gaitpost.2018.05.014

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Dhote SN, Khatri PA, Ganvir SS (2012) Reliability of “modified timed up and go” test in children with cerebral palsy. J Pediatr Neurosci 7(2):96–100. https://doi.org/10.4103/1817-1745.102564

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Katz-Leurer M, Rotem H, Lewitus H, Keren O, Meyer S (2008) Functional balance tests for children with traumatic brain injury: within-session reliability. Pediatr Phys Ther 20(3):254–258. https://doi.org/10.1097/PEP.0b013e3181820dd8

  19. Martin K, Natarus M, Martin J, Henderson S (2017) Minimal detectable change for TUG and TUDS tests for children with down syndrome. Pediatr Phys Ther 29(1):77–82. https://doi.org/10.1097/pep.0000000000000333

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Iatridou G, Dionyssiotis Y (2013) Reliability of balance evaluation in children with cerebral palsy. Hippokratia 17(4):303–306

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Smits-Engelsman BCM (2010) Movement ABC-2-NL Dutch manual. Pearson, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  22. Koo TK, Li MY (2016) A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. J Chiropr Med 15(2):155–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcm.2016.02.012

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Portney LG, Watkins MP (2009) Foundations of clinical research applications to practice, vol 3rd ed. Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River

    Google Scholar 

  24. Gallahue D, Ozmun J (2006) Understanding motor development: infants, children, adolescents, adults, 6th edn. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  25. Steinberg N, Nemet D, Pantanowitz M, Eliakim A (2018) Gait pattern, impact to the skeleton and postural balance in overweight and obese children: a review. Sports (Basel) 6(3). https://doi.org/10.3390/sports6030075

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Rehabilitation Sciences and Physiotherapy, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Antwerp, Universiteitsplein 1, 2610, Wilrijk, Belgium

    Ann Hallemans, Tamaya Van Criekinge, Luc Vereeck & Evi Verbecque

  2. Multidisciplinary Motor Centre Antwerp (M2OCEAN), University of Antwerp, Universitair Ziekenhuis Antwerpen route 41, Wilrijkstraat, 10 2650, Edegem, Belgium

    Ann Hallemans, Tamaya Van Criekinge, Luc Vereeck & Evi Verbecque

  3. Rehabilitation Research Center (REVAL) Pediatric rehabilitation, Faculty of rehabilitation sciences and physiotherapy, Hasselt University, Agoralaan building A, 3590, Diepenbeek, Belgium

    Katrijn Klingels & Evi Verbecque

  4. Department of Rehabilitation Sciences, Research Group for Neurorehabilitation (eNRGy), KU Leuven, Tervuursevest 101 - box 1501, 3001, Leuven, Belgium

    Katrijn Klingels

Authors
  1. Ann Hallemans
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Katrijn Klingels
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Tamaya Van Criekinge
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Luc Vereeck
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Evi Verbecque
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

E. Verbecque conception of the study, data collection, analyses and interpretation of the data, drafting the manuscript

T. Van Criekinge: data collection, analyses and interpretation of the data, drafting the manuscript

A. Hallemans: analyses and interpretation of the data, drafting the manuscript

L. Vereeck: analyses and interpretation of the data, drafting the manuscript

K. Klingels: analyses and interpretation of the data, drafting the manuscript

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Evi Verbecque.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

The study was approved by the ethical committee of the Antwerp University Hospital (B300201629848).

Informed consent

All parents gave written informed consent before their child participated in the study.

Additional information

Communicated by Piet Leroy

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hallemans, A., Klingels, K., Van Criekinge, T. et al. Reliability and concurrent validity of a modified timed up and go test for healthy preschoolers. Eur J Pediatr 179, 1579–1586 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00431-020-03638-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00431-020-03638-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation