Does chair type influence outcome in the timed “up and go” test in older persons?
- 141 Downloads
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.
Multipurpose senior centres.
Mobile older persons (N= 118, mean age 77 years (range 62–99 years)).
Time to complete the timed “Up and Go” test using chair A and chair B, and inter-rater agreement in the time scores.
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).
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 wordsTimed “Up and Go” test chair type inter-rater agreement falls older persons
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 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
- 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
- 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.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
- 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
- 25.Lusardi MM, Pellecchia GL, Schulman M. Functional performance in community living older adults. J Geriatr Phys Ther. 2003;26:14–22.Google Scholar