Clinical measurement of sit-to-stand performance in people with balance disorders: Validity of data for the five-times-sit-to-stand test
Clinical measurement of sit-to-stand performance in people with balance disorders: Validity of data for the five-times-sit-to-stand test
复制标题
DOI：
10.1093/ptj/85.10.1034
复制
发表时间：
2005-10-01
期刊：
影响因子：
3.2
通讯作者：
Furman, JM
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Whitney, SL;Wrisley, DM;Furman, JM
背景和目的。有平衡障碍的人的特点是很难进行过渡动作，比如坐到站的动作。需要一个有效和可行的工具来帮助临床医生量化平衡障碍患者进行过渡运动的能力。本研究的目的是描述五次坐立测试（FTSST）数据的并发效度和判别效度。将FTSST与活动特异性平衡置信度量表（ABC）和动态步态指数（DGI）进行比较。研究对象和方法。本研究共招募了81名无平衡障碍的受试者和93名有平衡障碍的受试者。每位受试者被要求以尽可能快的速度从一张43厘米高的椅子上站起来5次。记录ABC和DGI得分。结果。有平衡障碍的受试者比没有平衡障碍的受试者执行FTSST的速度慢。判别分析表明，FTSST正确识别了65%的平衡功能障碍受试者，ABC正确识别了80%，DGI正确识别了78%。FTSST识别平衡功能障碍的能力在60岁以下的受试者中更好（81%）。讨论与结论。尽管总体而言，ABC和DGI在区分有平衡障碍和没有平衡障碍的受试者方面优于FTSST，但FTSST显示的鉴别效度和并发效度特性使该测试在临床决策中可能有用。
Background and Purpose. People with balance disorders are characterized as having difficulty with transitional movements, such as the sit-to-stand movement. A valid and feasible tool is needed to help clinicians quantify the ability of people with balance disorders to perform transitional movements. The purpose of this study was to describe the concurrent and discriminative validity of data obtained with the Five-Times-Sit-to-Stand Test (FTSST). The FTSST was compared with the Activities-specific Balance Confidence Scale (ABC) and the Dynamic Gait Index (DGI). Subjects and Methods. Eighty-one subjects without balance disorders and 93 subjects with balance disorders were recruited for the study. Each subject was asked to stand from a 43-cm-high chair 5 times as quickly as possible. The ABC and DGI scores were recorded. Results. Subjects with balance disorders performed the FTSST more slowly than subjects without balance disorders. Discriminant analysis demonstrated that the FTSST correctly identified 65% of subjects with balance dysfunction, the ABC identified 80%, and the DGI identified 78%. The ability of the FTSST to identify subjects with balance dysfunction was better for subjects younger than 60 years of age (81%). Discussion and Conclusion. The FTSST displays discriminative and concurrent validity properties that make this test potentially useful in clinical decision making, although overall the ABC and the DGI arc better than the FTSST at discriminating between subjects with and subjects without balance disorders.