ArticlePloS one2026
Reliability, construct validity, and usefulness of an assessment device for agility and motor-cognitive reactive stepping performance in community-dwelling older adults.
Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Age-related cognitive and motor decline impairs daily functioning and increases fall risk. Although both domains interact in everyday activities, they are often assessed separately, limiting ecological validity. This study examined reliability and construct validity of an assessment device for agility and motor-cognitive reactive stepping performance in older adults. In a test-retest design, 72 older adults (48 women; 73.7 ± 7.6 years) completed agility tests (Random Star Run and a dual task with multiple object tracking) and motor-cognitive tasks on the SKILLCOURT across four sessions: familiarisation, test day 1 and day 2 (7 days apart), and test day 3 (3 months later). Agility tasks required reactive changes of direction in response to visual cues, while motor-cognitive stepping tasks assessed simple and choice reaction time, task switching, 2-back, and Stroop word-color interference. Intersession Reliability was evaluated using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and coefficients of variation (CV), learning effects with linear mixed models, and construct validity via age-adjusted regression against established motor (Timed-up-and-Go; TUG; single-/dual task) and seated PC-based cognitive measures of reaction speed and executive functions corresponding to the SKILLCORT tasks. Significant learning effects were observed mainly between test days 1 and 2. Relative reliability was moderate to excellent for SKILLCOURT agility, simple reaction time, and Stroop word-color performance (ICC = 0.70-0.94), but lower for choice reaction time, task switching, and the 2-back task (ICC = 0.49-0.66). Absolute reliability was generally good (CV = 4.6-7.2%), except for the SKILLCOURT task switching and 2-back (~12%) and, in particular, the dual task agility test (32%). Random Star Run agility was predicted by TUG single-task performance, PC-based Stroop interference control, and simple reaction time (R2 = 0.77), while dual task agility was predicted by TUG dual task and PC-based 2-back performance (R2 = 0.37). All motor-cognitive outcomes were significantly associated with corresponding PC-based cognitive measures (R2 = 0.20-0.41). The SKILLCOURT demonstrated good reliability for the Random Star Run agility test and most motor-cognitive measures, although adequate familiarisation appears necessary to minimise learning effects. Construct validity was confirmed for agility measures, while reactive stepping tasks appeared to involve greater motor demands and task interference, which may weaken correlations with comparable PC-based cognitive tests.
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.