ArticleAging clinical and experimental research2019
Consistency and test-retest reliability of stepping tests designed to measure self-perceived and actual physical stepping ability in older adults.
Article in Aging clinical and experimental research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Development and psychometric testing of the Aesthetics of Everyday Life Scale in Aging (AELSA).BMC geriatrics · 2024Review
- Does misjudgement in a stepping down paradigm predict falls in an older population?Royal Society open science · 2019Article
- The Value of Handgrip Strength and Self-Rated Squat Ability in Predicting Mild Cognitive Impairment: Development and Validation of a Prediction Model.Inquiry : a journal of medical care organization, provision and financingArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundOlder adults with an incorrect perception of their physical abilities may fall more often, suggesting a need for tests to quantify self-perceived and actual abilities.
aimsTo determine between-test consistency and test-retest reliability of three tests that measure self-perceived and actual stepping ability in older adults.
methodsOlder adults performed three stepping tests, covering high (bar test) and far steps (river and step tests). We studied between-test consistency in the perceived ability and actual ability of 269 participants at each task and in the difference between these two (degree of misjudgment). We also studied test-retest reliability in 21 participants.
resultsPerceived ability showed moderate consistency (r = 0.46-0.55, p < 0.001) and moderate-to-strong reliability [ICC(2,1) = 0.42-0.63, p < 0.03] for all tests. Actual ability showed strong consistency (r = 0.77, p < 0.001) and strong-to-excellent reliability [ICC(2,1) = 0.68-0.93, p < 0.001]. Degree of misjudgment was weakly consistent between two stepping far tests (r = 0.32, p < 0.001), but not consistent between stepping far and high tests (r = 0.05 and 0.06, p > 0.3). Test-retest reliability of the degree of misjudgment was poor-to-moderate [ICC(2,1) = 0.38 and 0.50, p < 0.05 on the two stepping far tests and ICC(2,1) = - 0.08, p = 0.63 on the stepping high test].
conclusionsActual and perceived ability can be consistently and reliably measured across tests, whereas the degree of misjudgment is less reliable and consistent within individuals.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.