Timed "Up & Go" Dual-Task Tests: Age- and Sex-Specific Reference Values and Test–Retest Reliability in Cognitively Healthy Controls. Issue 10 (17th July 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Åhman, Hanna B; Berglund, Lars; Cedervall, Ylva; Giedraitis, Vilmantas; McKee, Kevin J; Rosendahl, Erik; Åberg, Anna Cristina
• Is Part Of: Physical therapy. Volume 101:Issue 10(2021)
• Publication Date: 2021-07-17
• Subjects: Cognitive Function -- Dual-Task -- Reference Values -- Reliability -- Timed Up & Go; Physical therapy -- Periodicals; Physical therapy; Physical Therapy Modalities; Rehabilitation; Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine; Periodicals; 615.8205
• DOI: 10.1093/ptj/pzab179
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0031-9023

Abstract

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.