Aging Clinical and Experimental Research

, Volume 24, Issue 4, pp 339–344 | Cite as

The five-times-sit-to-stand test: validity, reliability and detectable change in older females

  • Allon GoldbergEmail author
  • Martina Chavis
  • Johnny Watkins
  • Tyler Wilson
Original Article


Background and aims: The five-timessit- to-stand test (FTSST) is a physical performance test commonly-used in clinical geriatric studies. The relationship between FTSST times and dynamic balance has not been widely investigated in older adults. The main objective of this study was to evaluate the validity of the FTSST as a measure of dynamic balance in older adults. A second objective was to quantify relative and absolute reliability, as well as minimum detectable change (MDC) of the FTSST in older adults. Methods: Twenty-nine females (mean age, 73.6 years) performed two trials of the FTSST, timed up and go (TUG), and functional reach (FR) tests. Validity of the FTSST as a measure of dynamic balance was evaluated by quantifying strength of relationships between the FTSST and two measures of dynamic balance, TUG and FR, using Pearson’s correlation coefficient. Measures of relative [intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC)] and absolute [standard error of measurement (SEM)] reliability, as well as the MDC at the 95% confidence level (MDC95) were computed for the FTSST. Results: The Pearson’s correlation coefficient between FTSST and TUG (r=0.64, p<0.001) indicates that FTSST is a valid measure of dynamic balance and functional mobility in older adults. The ICC2,1 of 0.95 is indicative of excellent relative reliability of the FTSST. SEM was 0.9 seconds and MDC95 was 2.5 seconds for the FTSST. SEM (6.3% of mean FTSST) and MDC (17.5% of mean FTSST) percent values were low. Conclusions: The FTSST is a valid measure of dynamic balance and functional mobility in older adults. The high ICC and low SEM and SEM% suggest excellent relative and absolute reliability and reproducibility of the FTSST in older adults. Change in FTSST performance should exceed 2.5 seconds to be considered real change beyond measurement error.

Key words

Dynamic balance minimum detectable change older adults relative and absolute reliability sit to stand 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Rubenstein LZ. Falls in older people: epidemiology, risk factors and strategies for prevention. Age Ageing 2006; 35 (Suppl 2): ii37–41.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lord SR, Murray SM, Chapman K, Munro B, Tiedemann A. Sit-to-stand performance depends on sensation, speed, balance, and psychological status in addition to strength in older people. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 2002; 57: M539–43.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hughes MA, Myers BS, Schenkman ML. The role of strength in rising from a chair in the functionally impaired elderly. J Biomech 1996; 29: 1509–13.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Whitney SL, Wrisley DM, Marchetti GF, Gee MA, Redfern MS, Furman JM. Clinical measurement of sit-to-stand performance in people with balance disorders: validity of data for the Five- Times-Sit-to-Stand Test. Phys Ther 2005; 85: 1034–45.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Powell LE, Myers AM. The Activities-specific Balance Confidence (ABC) Scale. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 1995; 50A: M28–34.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Shubert TE, Schrodt LA, Mercer VS, Busby-Whitehead J, Giuliani CA. Are scores on balance screening tests associated with mobility in older adults? J Geriatr Phys Ther 2006; 29: 33–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Podsiadlo D, Richardson S. The timed “Up & Go”: a test of basic functional mobility for frail elderly persons. J Am Geriatr Soc 1991; 39: 142–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Duncan PW, Weiner DK, Chandler J, Studenski S. Functional reach: a new clinical measure of balance. J Gerontol 1990; 45: M192–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Haley SM, Fragala-Pinkham MA. Interpreting change scores of tests and measures used in physical therapy. Phys Ther 2006; 86: 735–43.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hollman JH, Beckman BA, Brandt RA, Merriwether EN, Williams RT, Nordrum JT. Minimum detectable change in gait velocity during acute rehabilitation following hip fracture. J Geriatr Phys Ther 2008; 31: 53–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Meretta BM, Whitney SL, Marchetti GF, Sparto PJ, Muirhead RJ. The five times sit to stand test: responsiveness to change and concurrent validity in adults undergoing vestibular rehabilitation. J Vestib Res 2006; 16: 233–43.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Shumway-Cook A, Brauer S, Woollacott M. Predicting the probability for falls in community-dwelling older adults using the Timed Up & Go Test. Phys Ther 2000; 80: 896–903.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lin MR, Hwang HF, Hu MH, Wu HD, Wang YW, Huang FC. Psychometric comparisons of the timed up and go, one-leg stand, functional reach, and Tinetti balance measures in community-dwelling older people. J Am Geriatr Soc 2004; 52: 1343–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Isles RC, Choy NL, Steer M, Nitz JC. Normal values of balance tests in women aged 20–80. J Am Geriatr Soc 2004; 52: 1367–72.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Shrout PE, Fleiss JL. Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol Bull 1979; 86: 420–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Stratford PW, Goldsmith CH. Use of the standard error as a reliability index of interest: an applied example using elbow flexor strength data. Phys Ther 1997; 77: 745–50.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Stratford PW. Getting more from the literature: estimating the standard error of measurement from reliability studies. Physiotherapy Canada 2004; 56: 27–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Portney LG, Watkins MP. Foundations of Clinical Research: Applications to Practice, 3rd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice- Hall, Inc., 2009.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986; 1: 307–10.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wagner JM, Rhodes JA, Patten C. Reproducibility and minimal detectable change of three-dimensional kinematic analysis of reaching tasks in people with hemiparesis after stroke. Phys Ther 2008; 88: 652–63.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Yamada T, Demura S. Relationships between ground reaction force parameters during a sit-to-stand movement and physical activity and falling risk of the elderly and a comparison of the movement characteristics between the young and the elderly. Arch Gerontol Geriatr 2009; 48: 73–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Cheng PT, Liaw MY, Wong MK, Tang FT, Lee MY, Lin PS. The sit-to-stand movement in stroke patients and its correlation with falling. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1998; 79: 1043–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Steffen T, Seney M. Test-retest reliability and minimal detectable change on balance and ambulation tests, the 36-item shortform health survey, and the unified Parkinson disease rating scale in people with parkinsonism. Phys Ther 2008; 88: 733–46.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Jaeschke R, Singer J, Guyatt GH. Measurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Control Clin Trials 1989; 10: 407–15.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Copay AG, Subach BR, Glassman SD, Polly DW Jr, Schuler TC. Understanding the minimum clinically important difference: a review of concepts and methods. Spine J 2007; 7: 541–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Internal Publishing Switzerland 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Allon Goldberg
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Martina Chavis
    • 1
  • Johnny Watkins
    • 1
  • Tyler Wilson
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Health Care Sciences, Physical Therapy Program, Mobility Research LaboratoryWayne State UniversityDetroitUSA
  2. 2.Institute of GerontologyWayne State UniversityDetroitUSA

Personalised recommendations