The Component Timed-Up-and-Go test: the utility and psychometric properties of using a mobile application to determine prosthetic mobility in people with lower limb amputations

Abstract

Objective:

Using a custom mobile application to evaluate the reliability and validity of the Component Timed-Up-and-Go test to assess prosthetic mobility in people with lower limb amputation.

Design:

Cross-sectional design.

Setting:

National conference for people with limb loss.

Subjects:

A total of 118 people with non-vascular cause of lower limb amputation participated. Subjects had a mean age of 48 (±13.7) years and were an average of 10 years post amputation. Of them, 54% (n = 64) of subjects were male.

Intervention:

None.

Main measure:

The Component Timed-Up-and-Go was administered using a mobile iPad application, generating a total time to complete the test and five component times capturing each subtask (sit to stand transitions, linear gait, turning) of the standard timed-up-and-go test. The outcome underwent test–retest reliability using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and convergent validity analyses through correlation with self-report measures of balance and mobility.

Results:

The Component Timed-Up-and-Go exhibited excellent test–retest reliability with ICCs ranging from .98 to .86 for total and component times. Evidence of discriminative validity resulted from significant differences in mean total times between people with transtibial (10.1 (SD: ±2.3)) and transfemoral (12.76 (SD: ±5.1) amputation, as well as significant differences in all five component times (P < .05). Convergent validity of the Component Timed-Up-and-Go was demonstrated through moderate correlations with the PLUS-M (r_s = −.56).

Conclusion:

The Component Timed-Up-and-Go is a reliable and valid clinical tool for detailed assessment of prosthetic mobility in people with non-vascular lower limb amputation. The iPad application provided a means to easily record data, contributing to clinical utility.

Keywords

Amputation prosthetic mobility timed-up-and-go outcome measures mobile health applications

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Miller

Deathe

Speechley

, et al. The influence of falling, fear of falling, and balance confidence on prosthetic mobility and social activity among individuals with a lower extremity amputation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2001; 82(9): 1238–1244.

Orendurff

Schoen

Bernatz

, et al. How humans walk: bout duration, steps per bout, and rest duration. J Rehabil Res Dev 2008; 45(7): 1077–1089.

Klute

Berge

Orendurff

, et al. Prosthetic intervention effects on activity of lower-extremity amputees. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2006; 87(5): 717–722.

Bussmann

Grootscholten

Stam

. Daily physical activity and heart rate response in people with a unilateral transtibial amputation for vascular disease. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2004; 85(2): 240–244.

Glaister

Bernatz

Klute

, et al. Video analysis of turning during activities of daily living. Gait Posture 2007; 25(2): 289–294.

Sedgeman

Goldie

Iansek

(eds). Development of a measure of turning during walking. In: Advancing rehabilitation: inaugural conference of the faculty of health sciences, La Trobe University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia, 2–4 November 1994.

Dite

Temple

. Development of a clinical measure of turning for older adults. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2002; 81(11): 857–866.

Dite

Conner

Curtis

. Clinical identification of multiple fall risk early after unilateral transtibial amputation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2007; 88(1): 109–114.

Heinemann

Connelly

Ehrlich-Jones

, et al. Outcome instruments for prosthetics: clinical applications. Phys Med Rehabil Clin N Am 2014; 25(1): 179–198.

10.

Resnik

Borgia

. Reliability of outcome measures for people with lower-limb amputations: distinguishing true change from statistical error. Phys Ther 2011; 91(4): 555–565.

11.

Deathe

Wolfe

Devlin

, et al. Selection of outcome measures in lower extremity amputation rehabilitation: ICF activities. Disabil Rehabil 2009; 31(18): 1455–1473.

12.

Wedge

Braswell-Christy

Brown

, et al. Factors influencing the use of outcome measures in physical therapy practice. Physiother Theory Pract 2012; 28(2): 119–133.

13.

Jette

Halbert

Iverson

, et al. Use of standardized outcome measures in physical therapist practice: perceptions and applications. Phys Ther 2009; 89(2): 125–135.

14.

Wall

Bell

Campbell

. The expanded timed get-up and go test. Gait Posture 1998; 7(2): 187.

15.

El-Gohary

Pearson

McNames

, et al. Continuous monitoring of turning in patients with movement disability. Sensors 2013; 14(1): 356–369.

16.

Coulthard

Treen

Oates

, et al. Evaluation of an inertial sensor system for analysis of timed-up-and-go under dual-task demands. Gait Posture 2015; 41(4): 882–887.

17.

Hafner

Gaunaurd

Morgan

, et al. Construct validation of the Prosthetic Limb Users Survey of Mobility (PLUS-M) in adults with lower limb amputation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2016; 98: 277–285.

18.

Wong

Chihuri

. Risk of fall-related injury in people with lower limb amputations: a prospective cohort study. J Rehabil Med 2016; 48(1): 80–85.

19.

Miller

Deathe

Speechley

. Psychometric properties of the activities-specific balance confidence scale among individuals with a lower-limb amputation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2003; 84(5): 656–661.

20.

Sprint

Cook

Weeks

. Towards automating clinical assessments: a survey of the Timed Up and Go (TUG). IEEE Rev Biomed Eng 2015; 8: 64–77.

21.

Wall

Bell

Campbell

, et al. The Timed Get-up-and-Go test revisited: measurement of the component tasks. J Rehabil Res Dev 2000; 37(1): 109–113.

22.

Razali

Wah

. Power comparisons of Shapiro-Wilk, Kolmogorov-Smirnov, Lilliefors and Anderson-Darling tests. J Stat Model Anal 2011; 2(1): 21–33.

23.

Shrout

Fleiss

. Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol Bull 1979; 86(2): 420–428.

24.

Weir

. Quantifying test-retest reliability using the intraclass correlation coefficient and the SEM. J Strength Cond Res 2005; 19(1): 231–240.

25.

Portney

Watkins

. Foundations of clinical research applications to practice. 2nd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2000.

26.

Jette

Halbert

Iverson

, et al. Use of standardized outcome measures in physical therapist practice: perceptions and applications. Phys Ther 2009; 89(2): 125–135.

27.

Major

Fatone

Roth

. Validity and reliability of the Berg Balance Scale for community-dwelling persons with lower-limb amputation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2013; 94(11): 2194–2202.

28.

Wong

Chen

Blackwell

, et al. Balance ability measured with the Berg Balance Scale: a determinant of fall history in community-dwelling adults with leg amputation. J Rehabil Med 2015; 47(1): 80–86.

29.

Gremeaux

Damak

Troisgros

, et al. Selecting a test for the clinical assessment of balance and walking capacity at the definitive fitting state after unilateral amputation: a comparative study. Prosthet Orthot Int 2012; 36(4): 415–422.

30.

Miller

Deathe

Speechley

. Lower extremity prosthetic mobility: a comparison of 3 self report scales. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2001; 82(10): 1432–1440.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.38 MB