ArticlePhysiotherapy research international : the journal for researchers and clinicians in physical therapy2026
Reliability and Construct Validity of the Six-Minute Step Test in Individuals With Non-Specific Chronic Low Back Pain.
Article in Physiotherapy research international : the journal for researchers and clinicians in physical therapy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background and purposeThe six-minute step test (6MST) is a practical, field-based assessment that may provide useful information about stepping performance in individuals with non-specific chronic low back pain (NSCLBP). However, evidence regarding its measurement properties in this population is limited. The aim of this study was to evaluate the inter-rater reliability and construct validity of the 6MST in individuals with NSCLBP.
methodsWe conducted a cross-sectional psychometric study to evaluate the 6MST's inter-rater reliability and construct validity using a known-groups approach. Thirty-one individuals with NSCLBP and 31 age- and sex-matched healthy controls completed the 6MST. Two blinded raters administered the test independently on separate occasions 7 days apart. We assessed inter-rater reliability using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), standard error of measurement (SEM), minimal detectable change (MDC), and Bland-Altman analysis. Construct validity was examined by comparing 6MST performance between groups using hypothesis testing and effect sizes (Cohen's d). Secondary outcomes included heart rate responses, perceived exertion, pain intensity, disability, pain catastrophizing, and kinesiophobia.
resultsThe 6MST demonstrated excellent inter-rater reliability, with ICCs of 0.915 (95% CI: 0.83-0.96) for the NSCLBP group and 0.973 (95% CI: 0.94-0.99) for controls. SEM and MDC values were 6 and 17 steps in the NSCLBP group and 3 and 8 steps in the controls, respectively. Bland-Altman analyses revealed good agreement and no evidence of proportional bias. Construct validity was supported by significantly lower performance in the NSCLBP group compared with the control group (mean differences: 37 and 33 steps for raters 1 and 2, respectively, both with p values less than 0.001), with very large effect sizes (Cohen's d = 1.91 and 1.76). Individuals with NSCLBP showed lower attainment of the predefined target heart rate and greater increases in pain intensity following the test, despite similar perceived exertion. DISCUSSION: The 6MST demonstrated excellent inter-rater reliability and satisfactory construct validity for assessing stepping performance in individuals with NSCLBP. Compared with healthy controls, individuals with NSCLBP completed fewer steps, were less likely to reach the predefined target heart rate during testing, and reported greater increases in pain intensity despite similar perceived exertion. These findings support the use of the 6MST as a practical, low-cost, performance-based assessment of stepping performance in this population. However, the observed heart rate responses should not be interpreted as evidence of differences in exercise tolerance, aerobic capacity, or cardiopulmonary function.
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.