Trial reportPloS one2019
The Step Test Evaluation of Performance on Stairs (STEPS): Validation and reliability in a neurological disorder.
Trial report in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Clinical Assessment of Eccentric and Concentric Stepping Kinetics has Utility in Older African American Men with Knee Arthritis.Current aging science · 2025Article
- Effects of a Quadricep-Dominant vs. Functional Training Program on Activities of Daily Living, Functional Performance, and Motor Unit Recruitment in Older Adults.International journal of exercise science · 2025Article
- Comparison of repetitive peripheral magnetic stimulation (rPMS) and sham-rPMS with supervised exercise on pain and function in knee osteoarthritis patients -protocol for randomized sham-controlled trial.Journal of education and health promotion · 2025Article
- Establishing the Reliability of The Step Test Evaluation of Performance on Stairs (STEPS) in Multiple Sclerosis.Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation · 2024Article
- The impact of visual function on staircase use performance in glaucoma.Eye (London, England) · 2024Article
- Sex Differences and Physical Activity Status on the Hamstring: Quadriceps Ratio, Activities of Daily Living, and Functional Movement in Older Adults.International journal of exercise science · 2023Article
- Effect of Exercise Using an Exoskeletal Hip-Assist Robot on Physical Function and Walking Efficiency in Older Adults.Journal of personalized medicine · 2022Article
- Clinical Decision Trees to Guide Physical Therapy Management of Persons with Huntington's Disease.Journal of Huntington's disease · 2022Review
- Reliability and validity of six-minute step test in patients with heart failure.Brazilian journal of medical and biological research = Revista brasileira de pesquisas medicas e biologica · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIndividuals with neurological disorders often have difficulty negotiating stairs that can lead to injurious falls. Clinicians lack a clinical tool to identify impairments in stair negotiation and to assist their decision making regarding treatment plans to improve stair performance and safety. We developed a new tool called the Step Test Evaluation of Performance on Stairs (STEPS) that is designed to assess stair performance and safety in neurological populations.
objectivesThis study aimed to determine interrater and intrarater reliability of STEPS and its concurrent content validity to various clinical balance and mobility measures using individuals with Huntington's disease (HD) as the first test population.
methodsForty individuals with HD (mean age 50.35) participated. Three observers rated live performances of the STEPS (interrater reliability) and seven observers rated videotaped performances twice (intrarater reliability). STEPS scores correlated with clinical mobility and balance test scores.
resultsExcellent inter- and intrarater reliability (ICCs = 0.91 and 0.89 respectively) and good internal consistency (α = 0.83) were found. Better STEPS performance correlated with better performance on co-administered motor and mobility measures and Stair Self-Efficacy scores. Per multivariable regression analysis, the Unified Huntington's Disease Rating Scale modified motor score and descent time were significant predictors of STEPS performance.
conclusionsThe STEPS tool is easy to administer, requires no special devices and can be completed in less than five minutes. In the HD test population, it shows high reliability and validity making it a potentially useful tool for assessing maneuverability and safety on stairs in HD. The results suggest that the STEPS tool warrants further study to determine STEPS cut-off values for fall prediction in HD and may prove useful as an assessment tool for other neurological disorders.
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.