Research Report

Assessing the Reliability and Validity of
a Shorter Walk Test Compared With the
10-Meter Walk Test for Measurements of Gait
Speed in Healthy, Older Adults
Denise M. Peters, DPT1; Stacy L. Fritz, PT, PhD2; Debra E. Krotish, PhD1
ABSTRACT ment of walking speed when using it as a 1-time indicator of
Background and Purpose: Walking speed is associated with health status.
several health-related outcomes. Research examining how Key Words: older adult, gait speed, measurement, reliability,
differences in test walking distance affect walking speed validity
reliability and validity is limited. The primary purpose of this
study was to examine the reliability and concurrent validity of (J Geriatr Phys Ther 2013;36:24-30.)
gait speed measurements obtained from a 4-Meter Walk Test
compared with the commonly used 10-Meter Walk Test. A INTRODUCTION
second objective was to similarly examine 2 different timing
methods: stopwatch and automatic timers.
Walking speed is an important aspect of gait and is com-
Methods: Forty-three healthy, older adults (mean age ⫽ 84.3 ⫾
6.9 years) performed 3 consecutive walking trials on the 4- monly used as an objective measure of functional mobility
and 10-Meter Walk Tests at their self-selected walking speed. in both clinical and research settings. Its importance lies
Results: Gait speed measurements for both tests were shown not only in its implications for community ambulation but
to have excellent test-retest reliability (ICC values of 0.96- also because of its relationship to various health outcomes.
0.98), with similar results for stopwatch and automatic timer
Walking speed has been shown to be a key factor in deter-
assessments (ICC values of 0.99-1.00). Standard error of the
measurement (SEM) values were small (0.004-0.008 m/s) mining rehabilitation needs1,2 and discharge location3 and
across measurement methods. While the ICC value for gait has the potential to predict future functional decline4,5
speed measurements between the 2 walk tests was 0.93, the and fall risk.6,7 Furthermore, a decline in walking speed
Bland-Altman analysis revealed a discrepancy of ⫾0.15 to is associated with several health-related factors such as
⫾0.17 m/s between measurement methods.
disability, hospitalization, loss of independence, and mor-
Discussion: Both 4- and 10-m gait speed assessments had
excellent test-retest reliability with similar SEM and minimal tality.8-11 Improvement in walking speed has been linked
detectable change values. There was little difference in SEM to constructive changes in quality of life12 and walking
values between the 2 timing methods. While the mean differ- behavior.13 This importance, combined with its ease of use
ence in gait speed between the 4- and 10-Meter Walk Tests and objectivity, substantiates the use of walking speed as a
was small, the range of the measurement differences was
practical clinical measure that offers more insight into an
large enough to potentially mask meaningful changes in gait
speed over time if both methods were used interchangeably. individual’s overall functional capacity.
Conclusions: While the reliability of both walking tests is excel- Walking speed can be quickly and easily assessed in most
lent, the 4-Meter Walk Test does not exhibit a high enough clinical and research settings, and measurements of walking
degree of concurrent validity with the 10-Meter Walk Test speed have demonstrated good reliability across multiple
to be used interchangeably for gait speed assessments in
patient populations and in individuals with known gait
healthy, older adults. We therefore recommend using the
10-Meter Walk Test to obtain the most valid clinical assess- impairments.14-16 Great variation exists, however, in mea-
surement methods used to assess walking speed. There is
1Department little consensus concerning optimal testing parameters such
of Exercise Science, University of South
Carolina, Columbia. as starting protocol, pace, and timed walking distance. Often
2Palmetto Health, Division of Geriatrics, Columbia, South tests are chosen based more on tester preference and conve-
Carolina. nience, especially in clinical settings where space is limited.
There are no conflicts of interest, and no external funding The 10-Meter Walk Test is a commonly used measure
was used for this study. for assessing walking speed.17-22 It requires a 20-m path that
Address correspondence to: Denise M. Peters, DPT, includes 5 m for acceleration and deceleration. Practically,
Department of Exercise Science, University of South however, a full 20-m walkway is not always available, so
Carolina, 921 Assembly St, 3rd Floor PHRC, Columbia, SC there are several shorter distances commonly used to assess
29208 ( walking speed including 3-, 4-, and 6-m assessments.23
DOI: 10.1519/JPT.0b013e318248e20d Two studies with neurologic populations found significant
24 Volume 36 • Number 1 • January-March 2013
Copyright © 2013 The Section on Geriatrics of the American Physical Therapy Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

JPT200142.indd 24 12/7/12 7:21 PM

23.25 Overall.indd 25 12/7/12 7:21 PM . All participants gave detectable change (MDC) was calculated at both the 90% written informed consent. time) ing interrater variability. The SEM was and end of the timed walkway to allow participants multiplied by 1. In addition.96 to reflect the 90% or 95% space to accelerate/decelerate outside the data collection confidence intervals (CIs). however. Wireless timers tive was to examine the reliability and validity of walking (Brower Timing Systems) that send radio transmissions speed measurements obtained through 2 different methods: were used to record walking time. respectively. Participants were provided rest and is appropriate for 1-time assessments such as when breaks as needed throughout the testing session.40 poor reliability. representative assessments of walking speed as longer distances. or the difference between tion) (Figure 1). Forty-three Tests for both stopwatch and automatic timer assessments.1) and SD is the standard deviation of the trial vided for acceleration/deceleration) and the 10-Meter difference scores. where r is the test-retest reliability coefficient (in this walking pace using a 4-Meter Walk Test (with 2 m pro.24 and in self-selected walking speed between 10 m and “real-life environments” (eg. Participants were commonly used 10-Meter Walk Test when used to assess instructed to “walk at your comfortable. parking lot of a shopping center). research examining how subtle differences in test walking distance affect gait speed reliability and validity is limited both within and across patient populations. severe visual in gait speed that must be observed to be considered to impairment.31 tive trials for each walking test. and/or severe arthritis or orthopedic prob. participants were recruited from a local retirement com- The ICC values were interpreted using the benchmarks munity. Order of administration of the 2 different walking assessments (for both the 4. deviation of measurement error. this might walked past them.64 ⫻ SEM ⫻ √2 and MDC95 ⫽ 1. 0. usual pace” until walking speed in healthy.40 to 0. they reached the end of the marked path. associated with repeat measurements. older adults.64 or 1. placed at the beginning and end of the timed walkway representative assessments of gait speed can be achieved area and automatically started/stopped as the participant using shorter distances with a handheld timer. stopping it when the participant’s lead leg (or assistive Although reliability assessments across longer time inter- vals is more applicable for clinical outcomes. These timers were the use of a stopwatch and automatic timers. Inclusion criteria included age 65 years or older.27 Each participant completed 3 consecu.and 10-m test distances. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC3.and 10-Meter Walk of gait speed between 2 different walking tests. MDC90 ⫽ 1.and 10-Meter Walk Tests) Journal of GERIATRIC Physical Therapy 25 Copyright © 2013 The Section on Geriatrics of the American Physical Therapy Association. This value was area to help reduce gait variability introduced during multiplied by the square root of 2 to account for the error these phases. for a total of 6 walking The agreement between stopwatch and automatic timer trials.96 ⫻ SEM ⫻ √2. a member of the research increase the use of walking speed measurements in clinical team simultaneously measured walking time with a stop- settings. If reliable. intrasession device) crossed the second marker. JPT200142. ICC3. Distances were provided at the beginning the observed values and the true values.75 excellent reli- the ability to reliably follow 2-step instructions. where SEM is standard error of measurement. An additional objec.1) were calcu- Design and Participants lated to examine the reliability of gait speed measurements A cross-sectional study design was used with comparisons across walking trials 2 and 3 for the 4. conditions was randomly varied among participants so The primary purpose of this study was to examine that not all participants were performing the longer walk- the validity of a 4-Meter Walk Test compared with the ing test at the end of the testing session. To quantify the amount of change Exclusion criteria included severe weight-bearing pain (rated ⬎5/10 on the visual analog pain scale). Research Report differences in fast walking speed between 5. The same person per- reliability is an important first step to determine reliability formed all stopwatch measurements to prevent introduc- of a measurement without external influences (eg.75 fair to good reliability. 0. Outline of the 4.29. The Walking Procedure and Measurement SEM value was determined using the formula [SD ⫻ √(1 Walking speed was assessed at participants’ self-selected ⫺ r)]. and less than ability to walk 20 m with or without an assistive device.29. and the ability. starting the stopwatch as soon as the participant’s functional health status and imparting clinically meaning lead leg (or assistive device) crossed the first marker and information to help guide and monitor patient treatment. using walking speed as a vital sign. The study was approved by the and 95% confidence levels using the following formulas: institutional review board at Palmetto Health. It is unclear whether shorter Figure 1. suggested by Menz et al28: more than 0. exceed measurement error and variability. the minimal lems that limited ambulation ability.and 10-Meter Walk Tests.26 Data Analysis The Shapiro-Wilks test was used to test for normality of METHODS data. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited. case.30 The SEM is the estimated standard Walk Test (with 5 m provided for acceleration/decelera. thereby offering more insight into an individual’s watch. test walking distances provide as accurate.

008 0.02 (95% limits of agreement).96 (0. When comparing 4. Seven participants used an assis- tive device for ambulation.005 0. speed/time was averaged across the first 2 trials for this participant.02 0. with SEM values between 0. with similar interpretation of ICC point estimates as previously described. All statistical analyses were conducted using PASW version 18.98 (Table).01 0.and 10-m MDC95 0.97 (0. 26 Volume 36 • Number 1 • January-March 2013 Copyright © 2013 The Section on Geriatrics of the American Physical Therapy Association. MDC95.23) 0.006 SEM (or between stopwatch and automatic timer assessments) by plotting the difference in the measurement methods 4-m Walk.22) 0. differences and their distribution around the mean. 0.23) per stopwatch assessment.97 (0. MDC90.004 SEM RESULTS 10-m Walk.01 test for systematic differences in gait speed between the 2 walk tests.99) ICC (95% CI) ing plot shows the size and range of the measurement Abbreviations: CI.43 m/s. with a mean walking speed of 0. minimal detectable change at 90% CI. and how close the measurements have to be is a clinical question/decision (is 0.3 years (SD ⫽ 6. m/s Forty-three community-dwelling older adults (32 women. with ␣ ⬍ .01 average (across all 3 walking trials) gait speed assessments.97 (0. SEM.96-0. Validity was examined for both single trial (second walking trial) and MDC90 0.1 and the Bland-Altman method32 0.96 to 0. JPT200142. The Shapiro-Wilks test showed that gait speed bGait speed values expressed as mean (SD).and 10-m gait speed assessments was MDC95 examined using ICC2.9) participated 0. Trial 2b Reliability Across Walking Trials Both 4.22) measurements were normally distributed.95-0. Test-Retest Reliability of Gait Speed Measurements Across Consecutive Walking Trialsa from of measurement has more clinical utility than auto- matic timers.98 (0.01 and 0. 11 men) with a mean age 84. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.indd 26 12/7/12 7:21 PM . as this Table.and 10-m gait speed measurements were shown to Automatic timer have excellent test-retest reliability.22) the discrepancy between methods large enough to mean- Trial 2b ingfully affect the interpretation of results?).23) complete a third ambulation trial due to personal time con- Trial 3b straints.004 and 0.99) 0. When comparing the 2 timing methods.98 (0. IL). 0.24) 0. The Bland-Altman technique allows one to visually assess the agreement between 4.96-0.0 (SPSS. The 95% limits of agreement (mean difference ⫾1. intraclass correlation coefficient. with ICC values ranging from 0. minimal detectable change at 95% CI.23) 2 walking tests (or 2 timing methods) are likely to be for Trial 3b most individuals. In addition. so reliability analyses were performed and walking aAll values except ICC values are expressed in m/s. standard error of measurement. ICC.98 (0. One participant was unable to 0. Average walking speed (across all 3 trials) on the 10-Meter Walk Test varied between 0.02 0. Research Report and between 4. not based on statistical testing.97 (0.96 m/s (SD ⫽ 0.and 10-m gait speed assessments 0.33 The result- 0.01 0.008 m/s and MDC90/MDC95 values between 0. confidence interval.01 gait speed assessments. paired t tests were performed to MDC90 0. single-trial assessments of walking speed were used in the Bland-Altman analyses.98) 0.98 (0. Chicago.02 m/s.96 SD of the differences between measurement methods) provide an indication of how far apart measurements by the 0. m/s against the mean of the 2 measurements.22) 0.94-0.99) ICC (95% CI) in the study.97 (0. stopwatch assessments of walking speed were used for the Bland-Altman analyses. Reliability was similar for both Stopwatch stopwatch and automatic timer assessments. 34 A smaller range between these 2 limits indicates a better level of agreement.05.32.97 (0.97 (0.50 and 1.

and 10-m Stopwatch Assessments of difference: ⫺0. gait speed between the 2 walking tests.988-0.22).96) and for average gait speed measurements level of agreement between the 2 timing methods on the was 0. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.02 m/s) than on the 4-Meter Walk Test 2 walking tests.00 (95% CI: 0. While no obvious relationship between The ICC value for single-trial gait speed measurements the difference and mean was observed for stopwatch and between the 4.and 10-m m/s). The solid line represents the mean speeds.99 speed value of 0.88-0. mean ⫾ 2 (SD).15 m/s) gait speed between 4.349) gait speed compari- Automatic Timer sons.93 (95% automatic timer assessments.and 10-Meter Walk Tests was 0. mean ⫾ 2 (SD).0118 m/s.and 10-Meter Walk Test resulted in a mean gait for both walking tests. No obvious relationship between the (95% limits of agreement ranged from ⫺0.996) to 1. 2 timing methods. Figure 3 shows a Bland- 10-Meter Walk Test (95% limits of agreement ranged Altman plot for the differences in gait speed between the from ⫺0. Figure 2.17 m/s) and average (mean difference: ⫺0. comparisons.957) or average (P ⫽ .and 10-m walk assessments for either single.17 Gait Speed to 0.23) compared with 0. agreement.93 (95% CI: 0.95 m/s (SD ⫽ 0.999-1.22) for the 4-Meter Altman plot for the differences in gait speed between the Walk Test.96 m/s (SD ⫽ average gait speed assessments. Figure 2 shows a Bland.and 10-m gait speed assessments obtained gait speed assessments for the 4-Meter Walk Test (A) and using a stopwatch for single-trial (A) and average (B) gait 10-Meter Walk Test (B). Bland-Altman plots representing comparisons between stopwatch (SW) and automatic timer single-trial between 4.0007 m/s. Gait speed measurements were not significantly different 95% limits of agreement: ⫺0.02 to 0.00).97 m/s (SD ⫽ 0. with ICC values ranging from 0.87-0. the 10-Meter Walk The values for ICC were similar for both single-trial and Test resulted in a mean gait speed value of 0. Research Report Validity of Stopwatch Measurements Compared With trial (P ⫽ . The solid line represents the mean difference in difference in gait speed between the 2 timing methods. there was a slightly better CI: 0. JPT200142. average gait speed across the 2 tests.indd 27 12/7/12 7:21 PM . with the dashed with the dashed lines representing the upper and lower lines representing the upper and lower 95% limits of 95% limits of agreement. both Agreement between the 2 timing methods was excellent the 4. Journal of GERIATRIC Physical Therapy 27 Copyright © 2013 The Section on Geriatrics of the American Physical Therapy Association.05 difference and the mean was observed for 4. 0. 95% limits of agreement: ⫺0. gait speed assessments.17 to 0.05 to 0. When examining (95% CI: 0. with similar mean differences and 95% limits of agreement noted for both single-trial (mean Validity of 4.96). When comparing the second ambulation trial. Bland-Altman plots representing comparisons Figure 3.

older ever.and 10-m gait speed assessments had excellent test-retest outcomes. future research work could examine measure. from pre. While the ICC value quantifies the have been observed with a larger sample size.93) indicated excellent agreement between adults.97 and speed in healthy. as mean gait timing methods. Furthermore. to be 95% confident that a true change walking speed assessments.01 m/s or more or This study is one of the few to investigate how subtle 0. While analysis displayed a small range between the 95% limits the mean difference in gait speed between the 2 measures of agreement (⫾0. to walk. ment agree sufficiently for them to be used interchange- ple.24. our with the commonly used 10-Meter Walk Test when deter. the range of the upper and lower 95% limits acceptable degree of agreement such that the use of one of agreement was ⫾0. our results indicate that we could be ods are used.00 m/s. 4-m walking speed assessments intervals.09) and similar studies (ICC values from 0. with slightly higher gait patient population. First. or 2 times the SEM (0. Our results speed assessments in healthy. measurement methods associated with a of 0. Furthermore. cannot be used interchangeably with 10-Meter Walk Test ferent from those that are calculated from repeat measure. indicating a clinically was small. such as days or weeks.02 m/s or more is necessary for 10. Our ICC values were on the upper end of speed values differed by just ⫺0. with little difference in SEM values between the 2 4. similarly. and without an assistive device.99 m/s.005 m/s for stopwatch measurement methods is large enough to potentially mask assessments).15. JPT200142. improvements in walking speed care assessments. The ICC values 2 different walking distances (4 and 10 m) in healthy. As several participants required an assistive device walking speed assessments in specific patient populations. such that time for calculations of gait speed across various distances. however. older adults can be obtained using calculated from measurements taken across longer time a 4-Meter Walk Test. exhibit a high enough degree of concurrent validity with Another extrapolation is to look at gait speed changes the 10-Meter Walk Test to be used interchangeably for gait over time (eg.36 Furthermore.08 to 0.25 Our ment reliability and determine MDC values specific to this results indicate that although reliable assessments of walk- subpopulation of individuals.96 and 1.14 m/s as the needed change affect interpretation of gait speed results.26 Given these values of meaningful change in reliability.05 m/s or less).0118 m/s (SD ⫽ 0. assessments. are a more accessible instrument and often be used interchangeably if the calculated 95% limits of used in both clinical and research settings to record walking agreement are close enough.37 In addition. For example. which has been the focus of previous research.and 4-m walk assess. which improves external ences in the data. for a meaningful improvement in walking speed in older If walking speed is to be used as a vital sign in health adults.17. to investigate the reliability and validity of different adults. or one in place of the other. it alone is insufficient to evaluate our sample included both individuals who ambulated with patterns of discrepancy that may be present among differ. Consideration must be taken when viewing ments taken within the same testing session. but few clinical settings have such devices. The Bland-Altman method aids in the validity but increases variability in sample characteristics. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited. the calculated limits of agreement in our study consecutive walking trials. reliability of 2 methods.1 m/s or more have been shown to be a useful pre- small SEM value are important to ensure a small degree of dictor for well-being whereas decreases in walking speed measurement error when assessing baseline values. MDC values ing speed in healthy. Research Report DISCUSSION determination of whether 2 methods of clinical measure- The use of automatic timers to record walking time is sim. could be in a manner dif.88 to 0. how- has occurred beyond measurement error in healthy. a difference between measurement methods as extreme as Our results indicate excellent agreement both within and described by the limits of agreement would not meaning- between stopwatch and automatic timer assessments across fully affect interpretation of results. and it is possible that a mining gait speed is important. 28 Volume 36 • Number 1 • January-March 2013 Copyright © 2013 The Section on Geriatrics of the American Physical Therapy Association. Both of the same amount have been linked with poorer health 4. the Bland-Altman speed values obtained with the 10-Meter Walk Test. The discrepancy between 0. as space is often a limiting lesser discrepancy between measurement methods might factor in clinical settings.indd 28 12/7/12 7:21 PM .33 The 2 methods may on the contrary.0007 m/s (SD ⫽ 0. indicate that a change in gait speed of 0. as they may have been influenced Examining the validity of a shorter walk test compared by a number of limitations present in this study.and 10-m walking speed assessments. our results indicate that we could be 95% confident the 2 walking tests interchangeably in assessments of gait that this individual’s true gait speed is between 0. although the reliability of both 95% confident that this individual’s true gait speed is walking tests is excellent. the 4-Meter Walk Test does not between 0. older adults.08) for single-trial and average gait examined the reliability of gait speed measurements in this speed assessments. study sample was relatively small.98 m/s on the 10-Meter Walk gait speed assessments is not sufficient to permit using Test.17 m/s. older for our data (0. if an individual indicate that the degree of agreement between 4. if the 4-Meter Walk Test was used meaningful changes in gait speed over time if both meth- as a screening tool. per clinical decision. Therefore.32.15 to ⫾0. Several studies timing method over the other would not meaningfully have demonstrated 0. We did not attempt.97) that have ⫺0. older adults. respectively.and 10-m exhibited a gait speed of 0. Stopwatches. differences in test walking distance affect the validity of ments. ably. with similar SEM values when examined across gait posttreatment). respectively. our results.

Differential effects of power rehabilitation on physical performance and higher-level functional that there is insufficient agreement between the 2 walk. Graham JE. M691-M697. et al. however. than the current study. capacity among community-dwelling older adults with a slight degree of frailty. Moseley AM. Studenski SA. healthy. Admission ambulation velocity predicts length of stay and discharge disposition following stroke in an acute rehabilitation hospital. Kuo HK. in this study. 2003.90(4):527-537. Roumani YF. Aging and Body Composition Study. 2002. Blau A. Assessing walking in walking test parameters affect walking speed assessments speed in clinical research: a systematic review.indd 29 12/7/12 7:21 PM . Effect of intensive outpatient physical training on gait as automatic timers in measurements of gait speed. Tiredness and subsequent disability in patient population. although the differences in gait speed measure.49(11):1456-1462. functional. de Bie RA. Wolf SL. a 4-Meter Walk Test can be used if space is a limiting falling among older adults transitioning to frailty. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited. ing tests to permit them to be used interchangeably in this J Epidemiol. 2006. m/s). Menz HB. performance in community-dwelling elderly people: Six-Minute Walk Test. Montero-Odasso M. Salbach NM. REFERENCES 28.16(3): 306-314. Test- re-test reliability of walking speed. Clin Rehabil. et al. 25. et al.54(5):743-749. Rabadi MH. Purser JL. Ostir GV. Is a fall just a fall: correlates of falling be assessed first. 21. 9. Schroll M. and behavioral characteristics with activity-related fear of ever. Higgins J. et al. Although 4.82(2): ment error and variability. Distance to achieve steady state walking speed in frail elderly persons. Kressig RW. Intrasession reliability needs to 7. 2006.82(9):1204-1212. Moseley AM. Fujimura T. J Eval Clin Pract. Avlund K. Jorgensen JR. Haley SM. Dietz V. Finch LE. Weinberger M. Responsiveness and predictability of gait speed and other disability ment of gait speed measures compared with the 10-Meter measures in acute stroke. reliability and validity analyses among gait 5. spatial parameters of gait in young and older people.21(4):295-301. 19. White paper: “walking speed: the sixth vital sign. 2008. Physical performance measures in tions across longer time intervals. mean self-selected walking speed of 0. Woodman RC. Yasuda N. 2007. Penninx BW. Validation exceeded the MDC values of the current study (0. Mody SH.42(4):535-546. Studenski SA. Kriska AM. Mollinger L. Reliability of gait speed measured by a strengthen our conclusions. Curt A. Timed Up & Go Test. separate days may result in different ICC and MDC values 6. factor. Hacker TA.23). how. Lusardi M. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. Fisher SR. 2007.and gender-related test really be meaningful if these values did not exceed measure. van Loo MA. 2005. Age. Rantanen T. 2000. Phys Ther.36. 8. Neurorehabil meaningful change in gait speed over time. Andersen demonstrated that handheld stopwatches were as reliable LL. J Am Geriatr Soc. Research Report Future studies with a larger number of individuals who use 3. Zijlstra W. Forster A. Journal of GERIATRIC Physical Therapy 29 Copyright © 2013 The Section on Geriatrics of the American Physical Therapy Association. Rantanen T. 2005. 1997. J Geriatr Phys Ther. Schonberger M. 1996. Interpreting change scores of tests rehabilitation after stroke. 10. 12. this might increase the use of walking speed walking speed assessment after traumatic brain injury: a pilot study. Bosman JM. Also. Duncan PW.19(1):20-26. from external influences. J Am Geriatr Soc. Perera S. Further performance and cardiovascular health in people with hemiparesis after stroke. reliability and were highly correlated. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 20-25. Phys Ther. Identifying early decline of physical function in community-dwelling older women: performance- speed measurements based on walking trials performed on based and self-report measures.45(3):313-320.55(11): speeds and/or who have specific pathologies (eg. ity of gait speed measurements over time was not assessed J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci.82(4):320-328. Behrman AL. Gait velocity as a single predictor of adverse events in healthy seniors aged 75 years and older. Mun San Kwan M. 2009. Yen CJ. Bowden MG. the 10-Meter Walk Test to obtain the most valid clinical 2006.38 than gait usual gait speed are linked to late-life disability: data from the National Health speed values obtained from other studies examining walk. Tiedemann A. 2003. ments between the 4. 20. Improvements in speed-based gait classifications are meaningful.32(2):2-5. 2002. Assessment of walking speed and subsequent measurements of gait speed for evaluations of distance in subjects with an incomplete spinal cord injury. clinically acceptable degree of agree. 2001. J Am Geriatr Soc. Berg Balance Scale. 2010. Brain Inj. Ota A. J Am Geriatr Soc. Steffen TM. assessment of walking speed in healthy.” a patient’s functional mobility and health status.85(8):650-658.20(1): 2005. de Rekeneire N. Meaningful change and responsiveness in common physical performance measures in older adults. Phys Ther. J Rehabil Res Dev. Leveille SG. the amount of change timed walking test in patients one year after stroke.51(3):314-322. 4. Ottenbacher KJ. Ecological validity of Walk Test. Maki BE. an assistive device could examine measurement reliability Neurorehabil Neural Repair. VanSwearingen JM. Guralnik for older adults who ambulate at slower or faster walking JM. we considered MDC values from other studies to 14. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. et al. the stabil. These results might be different 11. however. Ferrucci L. 22.60(10):1304-1309. 2.20 or somewhat lower15. Phys Ther. Arch Phys Med Rehabil.86(5):735-743. et al. Evans OM. Latt MD. Najafi B. Pahor M. Studenski S. 2008.27(1):91-96. Brach JS. Deficit and change in gait velocity during 29.55(11):1727-1734. 16. 2006. Gait Posture. Sattin RW. Studenski S. Horikawa S. older adults with a in usual gait speed predicts better survival in older adults. et al. and gait speeds. Finally. 2008. followed by reliability evalua. Bosman JM. Cohen HJ. Our results also Neural Repair. Lanzarone S. Walking speed predicts health Reliability of the GAITRite walkway system for the quantification of temporo- status and hospital costs for frail elderly male veterans. Lower extremity performance in nondisabled older persons as a predictor of subsequent hospitalization. Fritz S. to decrease possible variations in healthy older persons. 2004. Hassett L.38(7):2096-2100. 1999-2002. Ohara H.02 of a speed-based classification system using quantitative measures of walking performance poststroke. CL. stroke).and 10-Meter Walk Tests greatly 13.14(4): across different patient populations. et al. Associations of demographic. Visser M. that is considered meaningful by other studies may not 15. van Hedel HJ.19(4):341-348.77(10):1074-1082. We therefore recommend the use of older adults: the role of walking limitations. 128-137. 2004. Green J. Soriano ER. Stroke.17(2):61-67. Gait Posture. our results indicate 18. Chandler JM. ing speed in older adults. Mayo NE. The Health. 26.51(6):841-846.01-0. 2007. 27. 2002. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. JPT200142. older adults demonstrated excellent test-retest J Am Geriatr Soc. Improvement our study were all relatively healthy. 2004. Richards test can provide a high. Kautz SA. and validity in this subpopulation. Newman AB. Hardy SE. the participants in the clinical setting. Exploring how peak leg power and which is similar to 8. Gait changes in older adults: predictors of falls or indicators of fear. 2007. 1. Young J.61(11):1201-1205. In addition. and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). Balasubramanian CK. J Am Geriatr Soc. research should continue to examine how subtle differences 23. J Head measurements in clinical settings to offer more insight into Trauma Rehabil. If a shorter walking 552-562. but the same walking test needs to be used for all 2001. et al. Sorensen J. Lindemann U. step length and step width measurement CONCLUSIONS after traumatic brain injury: a pilot study. Goldie PA.96 m/s (SD ⫽ 0. and measures used in physical therapy. Perera S. Perera S. 24. Matyas TA.18(10):1041-1048. Lord SR. Bech-Pedersen DT.and 10-m walking speed assessments in 17. Fragala-Pinkham MA. Wallace D. Peila R.22(6):672-675. Ahmed S. Schapira M. Leveille SG. Schmid A. Zeeman P. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. older adults.

J Clin Epidemiol. Childs KB. accuracy of interpretation of results • 2-week turn around for review • Materials available at www. J Am Geriatr Soc. Bland JM. 2009. Thomas MW. PT. Wolf SL. rhythm an SEM-based criterion for identifying meaningful intra-individual changes in and variability parameters of gait during normal and dual task walking in older health-related quality of life. Hollman JH. J Nutr Health Aging.g. Kritchevsky SB. Walking speed: reference 1675-1680. 36. 2009. Research Report 30. revise with additional revie w.52(9):861-873. minor revision. 86-90. individuals. PhD. Tierney WM. Call for Reviewers The Journal of Geriatric Physical Therapy is seeking to expand our cadre of manuscript • possible recommendations: reject.346(8982):1085-1087. Wolinsky FD. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited. Lancet. Altman DG.24(2): scores for the Wolf Motor Function Test. et al. against standard method is misleading. JGPT Editor at lusardim@sacredheart. Bohannon RW. Aging and Body Composition Study. studies. et al. 30 Volume 36 • Number 1 • January-March 2013 Copyright © 2013 The Section on Geriatrics of the American Physical Therapy Association. JPT200142. Stat Methods Med Res.. Gait Posture.8(2):135-160.53(10): 35. 2005. or t-DPT) • Submission. Mueller AC. physical performance? Findings from a clinical trial in older adults (the LIFE-P 33. Kwon S. Altman DG.32(1):23-28. Youdas 31. DPT. 1999.editorialmanager. Andrews AW. Minimal detectable change values and correlates for older adults. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. Altman DG. 1996. McNeil ML. revision.1(8476):307-310. EdD. Further evidence supporting JW.5 manuscript per year for blinded peer review • Emphasis on quality of science: importance of research question. 1999. What is a meaningful change in methods of clinical measurement.indd 30 12/7/12 7:21 PM .13(6):538-544. clarity of study design. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. PhD. 1995. Lancet. Perera S. 32. Number of strides required for reliable measurements of pace. Comparing methods of measurement: why plotting difference usual gait speed in well-functioning older people—results from the Health. Bland JM. Bland JM. and acceptance of at least two manuscripts in a peer-reviewed journal To Apply: please send letter of application highlighting research interests/experience and current CV to Michelle Lusardi.237:662-667. Quilter CM. appropriateness of analysis. DSc. Taub E. Cesari M. Pahor M. Blanton S. Job Description: • Receive 4 . Uswatte G. Prognostic value of 34. Fritz SL. Penninx BW. Measuring agreement in method comparison study). 1986. Wyrwich KW. 2010. accept • provide confidential comments to editor • provide constructive criticism and suggestions to authors • follow reviewed manuscripts through revision process • develop review skills Prerequisites: • Graduate Degree beyond entry level (e. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two 37.