The journal of nutrition, health & aging

, Volume 14, Issue 4, pp 319–323 | Cite as

Does chair type influence outcome in the timed “up and go” test in older persons?

  • Sebastiana Z. Kalula
  • G. H. Swingler
  • A. A. Sayer
  • M. Badri
  • M. Ferreira
Article

Abstract

Objective

To test the effects of the use of a collapsible, portable chair (chair B), as opposed to a ‘standard’ chair (chair A), on the outcome of the timed “Up and Go” (TUG) test.

Design

Cross-sectional.

Setting

Multipurpose senior centres.

Participants

Mobile older persons (N= 118, mean age 77 years (range 62–99 years)).

Outcome measures

Time to complete the timed “Up and Go” test using chair A and chair B, and inter-rater agreement in the time scores.

Results

Time taken to complete the TUG test did not differ by chair type [median (interquartile range, IQR) = 12.3 (9.53–15.9) and 12.6 (9.7–16.6)] seconds for Chair A and B respectively, p-value=0.87. In multiple regression analyses, factors that impacted on time difference in test performance for the two chairs were use of a walking aid during the test [Odds ratio (OR) = 3.7 95%CI 1.1–11.9, p=0.031], observed difficulty with mobility (OR= 27.7 95%CI 2.6–290, p=0.006), and a history of arthritis in the knees (OR= 2.9 95%CI 1.0–8.7, P=0.05). In an inter-rater agreement analysis, no significant difference was found between time scores recorded by the two raters; median (IQR) = 12.4 (10.9–15.9) and 12.3 (7.2–59.1) seconds for the occupation therapist and for the research assistant, respectively (Wilcoxon matched pairs test, p=0.124, Spearman correlation coefficient = 0.99, p<0.001).

Conclusion

The use of a portable canvas chair with standardised specifications offers an acceptable alternative to the use of a ‘standard’ chair in assessments of fall risk using the TUG test in field settings where field workers are reliant on public transport.

Key words

Timed “Up and Go” test chair type inter-rater agreement falls older persons 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mathias S, Nayak USL, Isaacs B. Balance in elderly patients: the “Get-Up and Go” test. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1986;67:387–389.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sousa N, Sampaio J. Effects of progressive strength training on the performance of the Functional Reach Test and the Timed Get-Up-and-Go Test in an elderly population from the rural north of Portugal. Am J Hum Biol. 2005;17:746–751.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Carmeli E, Kessel S, Coleman R, Ayalon M. Effects of a treadmill walking program on muscle strength and balance in elderly people with Down syndrome. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2002;57:M106–M110.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lin M-R, Hwang H-F, Hu M-H, Wu H-D I, Wang Y-W, Huang F-C. 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;52:1343–1348.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Simmonds MJ, Olson SL, Jones S, et al. Psychometric characteristics and clinical usefulness of physical performance tests in patients with low back pain. Spine. 1998;23:2412–2421.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Payette H, Hanusaik N, Boutier V, Morais JA, Gay-Donald K. Muscle strength and functional mobility in relation to lean body mass in free-living frail elderly women. Eur J Clin Nutr. 1998;52:45–63.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bahonnon R and Schaubert K. Long-term reliability of timed Up and Go test among community-dwelling elders. J Phys Ther Sci. 2005;17:93–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lord SR, Sherriton C, Menz HB, editors. Postural stability and falls. In: Falls in older people. Risk factors and strategies for prevention. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 2001. p 17–39.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Boulgarides LK, McGinty SM, Willet JA, Barnes CW. Use of clinical and impairment-based tests to predict falls by community-dwelling older adults. Phys Ther. 2003;83(4):328–339.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bennie S, Bruner K, Dizon A, Fritz H, Goodman B, Peterson S. Measurements of balance: comparison of the Timed “Up and Go” test and Functional Reach test with the Berg Balance Scale. J Phys Ther Sci. 2003;15:93–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    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;80:890–903.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Okumiya K, Matsubayashi K, Nakamura T, Fujisawa M, Osaki Y, Doi Y, Ozawa T. The timed “up & go” test is a useful predictor of falls in community dwelling older people. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1998;46:928–930.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Whitney JC, Lord SR, Close JC. Streamlining assessment and intervention in a falls clinic using the Timed Up and Go Test and Physiological Profile Assessments. Age Ageing. 2005;34:567–571.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Salgado R, Lord SR, Packer J, Ehrlich F. Factors associated with falling in elderly hospital patients. Gerontology. 1994;40:325–331.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bischoff HA, Stähelin HB, Monsch AU, Iversen MD, Weyh A, von Deched M, Akos R, Conzelmann M, Dick W, Theiler R. Identifying a cut-off point for normal mobility: a comparison of the timed ‘up and go’ test in community-dwelling and institutionalized elderly women. Age Ageing. 2003;32:315–320.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Nikolaus T, Bach M, Specht-Leible N, Oster P, Schlierf G. Prospective value of selfreport and performance-based tests of functional status for 18-month outcomes in elderly patients. Aging Clin Exp Res. 1996;8:271–276.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Siggeirsdóttir K, Jónsson BY, Jónsson H Jr Iwarsson S. The timed ‘Up & Go’ is dependent on chair type. Clin Rehabil. 2002;16:609–616.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wall J C, Bell C, Campbell S, Davis J. The timed get-up and go test revisited: Measurement of the component tasks. J Rehabil Res and Dev. 2000;37(1);109–13.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bohannon RW. Reference values for the timed up and go test: a descriptive metaanalysis. J Geriatr Phys Ther. 2006;29:64–68.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rogers ME, Rogers LR, Takeshima N, Islam MM. Methods to assess and improve the physical parameters associated with fall risk in older adults. Prev Med. 2003;36:255–264.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Alexander NB, Guire KE, Thelen DG, Ashton-Miller JA, Schultz AB, Grunawalt JC, Giordani B. Self-reported walking ability predicts functional mobility performance in frail older adults. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2000;48(11):1408–1413.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Newton RA. Balance screening of an inner city older adult population. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1997;78:587–591.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lusardi MM, Pellecchia GL, Schulman M. Functional performance in community living older adults. J Geriatr Phys Ther. 2003;26:14–22.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Cesari M, Onder G, Russo A, Zamboni V, Barillaro C, Ferrucci L Pahor M, Bernabei R, Landi F. Comorbidity and physical function: results from the aging and longevity study in the Sirente geographic area (iLSIRENTE study). Gerontology. 2006;52(1);24–32.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    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(2):57–63.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    McMichael KA, Vander Bilt J, Lavery L, Rodriguez E, Ganguli M. Simple balance and mobility tests can assess falls risk when cognition is impaired. Geriatr Nurs. 2008;29:311–323.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Serdi and Springer Verlag France 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sebastiana Z. Kalula
    • 1
    • 6
  • G. H. Swingler
    • 2
  • A. A. Sayer
    • 3
  • M. Badri
    • 4
  • M. Ferreira
    • 5
  1. 1.Division of Geriatric Medicine, The Albertina and Walter Sisulu Institute of Ageing in Africa, Department of MedicineUniversity of Cape TownCape TownSouth Africa
  2. 2.School of Paediatrics and Child Health, Faculty of Health SciencesUniversity of Cape TownCape TownSouth Africa
  3. 3.MRC Epidemiology Resource CentreSouthampton General HospitalSouthamptonUK
  4. 4.Department of Medicine, Faculty of Health SciencesUniversity of Cape TownCape TownSouth Africa
  5. 5.International Longevity Centre South Africa, Faculty of Health SciencesUniversity of Cape TownCape TownSouth Africa
  6. 6.Department of Medicine, Division of Geriatric Medicine, Institute of Ageing in AfricaUniversity of Cape TownObservatorySouth Africa

Personalised recommendations