Properties of the 'Timed Up and Go' Test: More than Meets the Eye
Properties of the 'Timed Up and Go' Test: More than Meets the Eye
复制标题
DOI：
10.1159/000314963
复制
发表时间：
2011-01-01
期刊：
影响因子：
3.5
通讯作者：
Hausdorff, Jeffrey M.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Herman, Talia;Giladi, Nir;Hausdorff, Jeffrey M.
背景：“计时起立”测试 (TUG) 是一种简单、快速且广泛使用的基于临床表现的下肢功能、活动能力和跌倒风险的测量方法。我们推测其特性可能与其他基于表现的测试不同，并评估了认知功能是否可能导致健康老年人队列中这些测试之间的差异。目的：与 Berg 平衡测试 (BBT) 和动态步态指数 (DGI) 相比，评估健康老年人 TUG 的心理测量特性。方法：对参与一项为期 3 年的前瞻性研究的 265 名健康老年人（76.4 +/- 4.3 岁；58.3% 女性）进行 TUG、DGI 和 BBT 评估。简易精神状态检查、数字广度和语言流畅度测量认知功能。单样本柯尔莫哥洛夫-斯米尔诺夫检验评估了与正态分布的偏差，皮尔逊相关系数量化了关联性。结果：BBT、DGI 和 TUG 的平均得分分别为：54.0 +/- 2.4、22.8 +/- 1.5、9.5 +/- 1.7 s。 BBT 和 DGI 不呈正态分布 (p < 0.001)，但 TUG 呈正态分布 (p = 0.713)。 TUG 时间与数字跨度和语言流畅性有轻微相关（p < 0.01），并且与未来跌倒相关，而 BBT 和 DGI 则不然。结论：即使对于健康的老年人，TUG 似乎也是功能活动能力临床评估的合适工具。它不受上限效应的限制，呈正态分布，并且显然与执行功能相关。 BBT 和 DGI 不具备这些有益特性。也许 TUG 的转移和转动组件有助于将这种相对简单的运动任务转换为也依赖于认知资源的更复杂的测量。版权所有 (C) 2010 S. Karger AG，巴塞尔
Background: The 'timed up and go' test (TUG) is a simple, quick and widely used clinical performance-based measure of lower extremity function, mobility and fall risk. We speculated that its properties may be different from other performance-based tests and assessed whether cognitive function may contribute to the differences among these tests in a cohort of healthy older adults. Objective: To evaluate psychometric properties of the TUG in healthy older adults in comparison to the Berg balance test (BBT) and the Dynamic Gait Index (DGI). Methods: The TUG, DGI and BBT were assessed in 265 healthy older adults (76.4 +/- 4.3 years; 58.3% women) who participated in a 3-year prospective study. The Mini-Mental State Examination, digit span and verbal fluency measured cognitive function. The one-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov test evaluated deviations from a normal distribution and Pearson's correlation coefficients quantified associations. Results: The mean scores of the BBT, DGI and TUG were: 54.0 +/- 2.4, 22.8 +/- 1.5, 9.5 +/- 1.7 s, respectively. The BBT and the DGI were not normally distributed (p < 0.001), but the TUG was (p = 0.713). The TUG times were mildly associated (p < 0.01) with digit span and verbal fluency and were related to future falls, while the BBT and the DGI were not. Conclusions: The TUG appears to be an appropriate tool for clinical assessment of functional mobility even in healthy older adults. It does not suffer from ceiling effect limitations, is normally distributed and is apparently related to executive function. The BBT and the DGI do not share these beneficial properties. Perhaps the transferring and turning components of the TUG help to convert this relatively simple motor task into a more complex measure that also depends on cognitive resources. Copyright (C) 2010 S. Karger AG, Basel