Data_Sheet_1_The Stepping Threshold Test for Reactive Balance: Validation of Two Observer-Based Evaluation Strategies to Assess Stepping Behavior in Fall-Prone Older Adults.zip
Introduction: Measurement of reactive balance is critical for fall prevention but is severely underrepresented in the clinical setting due to the lack of valid assessments. The Stepping Threshold Test (STT) is a newly developed instrumented test for reactive balance on a movable platform, however, it has not yet been validated for fall-prone older adults. Furthermore, different schemes of observer-based evaluation seem possible. The aim of this study was to investigate validity with respect to fall risk, interpretability, and feasibility of the STT using two different evaluation strategies.
Methods: This study involved 71 fall-prone older adults (aged ≥ 65) who underwent progressively increasing perturbations in four directions for the STT. Single and multiple-step thresholds for each perturbation direction were determined via two observer-based evaluation schemes, which are the 1) consideration of all steps (all-step-count evaluation, ACE) and 2) consideration of those steps that extend the base of support in the direction of perturbation (direction-sensitive evaluation, DSE). Established balance measures including global (Brief Balance Evaluations Systems Test, BriefBEST), proactive (Timed Up and Go, TUG), and static balance (8-level balance scale, 8LBS), as well as fear of falling (Short Falls Efficacy Scale—International, FES-I) and fall occurrence in the past year, served as reference measurements.
Results: The sum scores of STT correlated moderately with the BriefBEST (ACE: r = 0.413; DSE: r = 0.388) and TUG (ACE: r = −0.379; DSE: r = −0.435) and low with the 8LBS (ACE: r = 0.173; DSE: r = 0.246) and Short FES-I (ACE: r = −0.108; DSE: r = −0.104). The sum scores did not distinguish between fallers and non-fallers. No floor/ceiling effects occurred for the STT sum score, but these effects occurred for specific STT thresholds for both ACE (mean floor effect = 13.04%, SD = 19.35%; mean ceiling effect = 4.29%, SD = 7.75%) and DSE (mean floor effect = 7.86%, SD = 15.23%; mean ceiling effect = 21.07%, SD = 26.08). No severe adverse events occurred.
Discussion: Correlations between the STT and other balance tests were in the expected magnitude, indicating convergent validity. However, the STT could not distinguish between fallers and non-fallers, referring to a need for further studies and prospective surveys of falls to validate the STT. Current results did not allow a definitive judgment on the advantage of using ACE or DSE. Study results represented a step toward a reactive balance assessment application in a clinical setting.
History
References
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.jbiomech.2008.02.022
- https://doi.org//10.1093/gerona/glz018
- https://doi.org//10.3138/ptc.2014-19
- https://doi.org//10.1186/s12877-020-01650-4
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.jelekin.2018.03.002
- https://doi.org//10.3138/ptc.41.6.304
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.amepre.2009.02.002
- https://doi.org//10.1093/ageing/afu054
- https://doi.org//10.1136/bmj.e4547
- https://doi.org//10.1007/s40520-020-01480-9
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.gaitpost.2018.06.117
- https://doi.org//10.1111/jgs.15657
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.jbiomech.2015.02.012
- https://doi.org//10.1111/j.1532-5415.2005.00509.x
- https://doi.org//10.1093/ptj/pzz132
- https://doi.org//10.1016/S0167-5877%2800%2900115-X
- https://doi.org//10.1093/geronj/49.2.M85
- https://doi.org//10.1046/j.1532-5415.2002.50505.x
- https://doi.org//10.1177/1545968319829453
- https://doi.org//10.1177/1545968319862565
- https://doi.org//10.1093/ageing/afi218
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.apmr.2008.01.023
- https://doi.org//10.2522/ptj.20080071
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.gaitpost.2014.12.005
- https://doi.org//10.1093/ageing/afm157
- https://doi.org//10.3389/fphys.2018.01366
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.physio.2018.02.002
- https://doi.org//10.1519/JPT.0000000000000099
- https://doi.org//10.1093/gerona/gly077
- https://doi.org//10.1093/ptj/77.5.488
- https://doi.org//10.1093/ageing/afl078
- https://doi.org//10.1053/apmr.2002.32304
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.apmr.2016.07.011
- https://doi.org//10.1007/BF01593882
- https://doi.org//10.1093/gerona/51A.6.M289
- https://doi.org//10.1093/gerona/glt062
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.arr.2020.101238
- https://doi.org//10.1207/s15324796abm2902s_5
- https://doi.org//10.1111/j.1532-5415.2000.tb03027.x
- https://doi.org//10.2522/ptj.20120056
- https://doi.org//10.1007/s40520-017-0749-0
- https://doi.org//10.1111/j.1532-5415.1991.tb01616.x
- https://doi.org//10.1093/ageing/afl084
- https://doi.org//10.1186/1743-0003-7-32
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.gaitpost.2013.05.016
- https://doi.org//10.2522/ptj.20110063
- https://doi.org//10.1378/chest.11-0523
- https://doi.org//10.1371/journal.pone.0070981
- https://doi.org//10.1111/j.1532-5415.1986.tb05480.x
- https://doi.org//10.1111/j.1365-2788.2010.01358.x
- https://doi.org//10.1186/s12877-018-0845-9