Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33562007›Full record

ArticleBrain sciences2021

Reliability and Validity of the Six Spot Step Test in People with Intellectual Disability.

María Mercedes Reguera-García, Raquel Leirós-Rodríguez, Eva Fernández-Baro, Lorena Álvarez-Barrio

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Brain sciences, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

María Mercedes Reguera-GarcíaSALBIS Research Group, Department of Nursing and Physiotherapy, Faculty of Health Sciences, Universidad de León, 24400 Ponferrada, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-2805-5340
Raquel Leirós-RodríguezSALBIS Research Group, Department of Nursing and Physiotherapy, Faculty of Health Sciences, Universidad de León, 24400 Ponferrada, Spain.ORCID 0000-0001-7502-7644
Eva Fernández-BaroAsprona Bierzo, Ave 3rd 24, 24400 Ponferrada, Spain.
Lorena Álvarez-BarrioDepartment of Nursing and Physiotherapy, Universidad de León, 24400 Ponferrada, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-2454-1333

Funding

VII Research Grant of the Professional College of Physiotherapist of Castilla y León INV2020-19
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Clinical tests for the evaluation of balance in people with intellectual disability that have been most commonly used depend on the subjective evaluation of the evaluator, easily reach the ceiling effect and are poorly sensitive to small changes; but new tests have been developed, such as the Six Spot Step Test. The aim of this study was to determine the validity and within-day and day-to-day test-retest reliability of the Six Spot Step Test in people with intellectual disability. A descriptive cross-sectional study was conducted with 18 people with intellectual disability. The participants conducted the Six Spot Step Test three times and a set of five clinical tests for the balance assessment. The relative reliability was excellent (Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) = 0.86 - 0.97), and the absolute reliability ranged between 4.7% and 7.3% for coefficient variation and between 0.6 and 1.2 for the standard error of measurement. Linear regression models showed that that test can explain the results of the Timed Up & Go, Four Square Step Test and the Berg Balance Scale. The Six Spot Step Test proved to be as valid and reliable for the evaluation of dynamic balance in people with intellectual disability as the most frequently used tests for the clinical evaluation of postural control.

Indexed as

balanceclinical testevaluationmotor controlpostural controlwalking ability

Identifiers

PMID33562007
PMCPMC7914911

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.