Reliabilitet av den norske versjonen av Timed Up and Go (TUG)

Hensikt: Vurdere intratester-, intertester-, og test-retest reliabilitet av den norske versjonen av «Timed Up and Go» (TUG). Design: Metodestudie som benytter tverrsnittsstudie-design. Materiale og metode: Tretti personer (20 kvinner og 10 menn) over 75 år (gjennomsnitt 82,5) gjennomførte TUG tre ganger. To fysioterapeuter skåret deltagerne. For utregning av relativ reliabilitet ble intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) anvendt, og for utregning av absolutt reliabilitet ble intrasubject standard deviation (Sw) anvendt. Resultater: Gjennomsnittstiden ble noe lavere ved hver gjennomføring, fra 20,2 til 18,1 sekunder. Intratester- og intertesterreliabilitet målt med ICC(1,1) viste 0,99 for alle målinger. 1,96 Sw varierte fra ±0,5 til er ±1,1 sekund mellom testerne for intratesterreliabilitet, og var ±0,3 sekunder for intertesterreliabilitet. Alle ICC(1,1) verdiene for test-retest var høyere enn 0,81 og 1,96 Sw varierte fra ±3,5 til ±4,4 sekunder. Reliabilitet ved gjennomsnittet av to målinger ICC(1,2) var over 0,90. Konklusjon: Studien viser at den nye norske protokollen av TUG har meget god intratester-, intertester- og test-retest reliabilitet. For høyere relativ reliabilitet anbefaler vi at gjennomsnittet av to målinger benyttes i klinikken. Med endringene foreslått i forhold til instruksjon, tidtakingparametrene og bruk av gjennomsnittet av to målinger, anbefaler vi at den utbedrede norske protokollen tas i bruk i Norge. Nøkkelord: standardiserte tester, klinisk protokoll, reliabilitet

Reliability of the Norwegian version of Timed Up and Go (TUG)

Aim: To test the intrarater-, interrater- and test-retest reliability of the Norwegian protocol of the «Timed Up and Go» (TUG). Design: Cross-sectional method study. Material and Method: Thirty persons (20 women and 10 men) 75 years or older (mean 82.5) completed TUG three times. To physiotherapists scored the participants. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was computed to express measurement variability relative to total variability, and within-subject standard deviation (Sw) calculated as an expression of absolute variability. Result: The mean times were from 18.1 to 20.2 seconds. Intrarater- and interrater reliability expressed as ICC(1,1) showed 0,99 for all the measurements. 1,96 Sw was from ±0,53 to ±0,57 seconds for intrarater reliability and ±0,3 seconds for interrater reliability. All ICC(1,1) values for the test-retest reliability was higher than 0,81. 1,96 Sw was between ±3.5 to ±4.4 seconds. When calculating the mean of two measurement, ICC(1,2) the reliability increased to over 0,90. Conclusion: This study demonstrates that TUG, on fragile elderly persons performed by experienced therapists, has high intrarater-, interrater- and test-retest reliability. We recommend that the mean of measurement two and three of the new Norwegian TUG version is used in the clinic

Interrater and test-retest reliability and validity of the Norwegian version of the BESTest and mini-BESTest in people with increased risk of falling

Background: The Balance Evaluation Systems Test (BESTest) was developed to assess underlying systems for balance control in order to be able to individually tailor rehabilitation interventions to people with balance disorders. A short form, the Mini-BESTest, was developed as a screening test. The study aimed to assess interrater and test-retest reliability of the Norwegian version of the BESTest and the Mini-BESTest in community-dwelling people with increased risk of falling and to assess concurrent validity with the Fall Efficacy Scale-International (FES-I), and it was an observational study with a cross-sectional design. Methods: Forty-two persons with increased risk of falling (elderly over 65 years of age, persons with a history of stroke or Multiple Sclerosis) were assessed twice by two raters. Relative reliability was analysed with Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC), and absolute reliability with standard error of measurement (SEM) and smallest detectable change (SDC). Concurrent validity was assessed against the FES-I using Spearman’s rho. Results: The BESTest showed very good interrater reliability (ICC = 0.98, SEM = 1.79, SDC95 = 5.0) and test-retest reliability (rater A/rater B = ICC = 0.89/0.89, SEM = 3.9/4.3, SDC95 = 10.8/11.8). The Mini-BESTest also showed very good interrater reliability (ICC = 0.95, SEM = 1.19, SDC95 = 3.3) and test-retest reliability (rater A/rater B = ICC = 0.85/0.84, SEM = 1.8/1.9, SDC95 = 4.9/5.2). The correlations were moderate between the FES-I and both the BESTest and the Mini-BESTest (Spearman’s rho −0.51 and-0.50, p < 0.01). Conclusion: The BESTest and its short form, the Mini-BESTest, showed very good interrater and test-retest reliability when assessed in a heterogeneous sample of people with increased risk of falling. The concurrent validity measured against the FES-I showed moderate correlation. The results are comparable with earlier studies and indicate that the Norwegian versions can be used in daily clinic and in research