Convergent Validity of a Wearable Sensor System for Measuring Sub-Task Performance during the Timed Up-and-Go Test

Background: The timed-up-and-go test (TUG) is one of the most commonly used tests of physical function in clinical practice and for research outcomes. Inertial sensors have been used to parse the TUG test into its composite phases (rising, walking, turning, etc.), but have not validated this approach against an optoelectronic gold-standard, and to our knowledge no studies have published the minimal detectable change of these measurements. Methods: Eleven adults performed the TUG three times each under normal and slow walking conditions, and 3 m and 5 m walking distances, in a 12-camera motion analysis laboratory. An inertial measurement unit (IMU) with tri-axial accelerometers and gyroscopes was worn on the upper-torso. Motion analysis marker data and IMU signals were analyzed separately to identify the six main TUG phases: sit-to-stand, 1st walk, 1st turn, 2nd walk, 2nd turn, and stand-to-sit, and the absolute agreement between two systems analyzed using intra-class correlation (ICC, model 2) analysis. The minimal detectable change (MDC) within subjects was also calculated for each TUG phase. Results: The overall difference between TUG sub-tasks determined using 3D motion capture data and the IMU sensor data was <0.5 s. For all TUG distances and speeds, the absolute agreement was high for total TUG time and walk times (ICC > 0.90), but less for chair activity (ICC range 0.5–0.9) and typically poor for the turn time (ICC < 0.4). MDC values for total TUG time ranged between 2–4 s or 12–22% of the TUG time measurement. MDC of the sub-task times were higher proportionally, being 20–60% of the sub-task duration. Conclusions: We conclude that a commercial IMU can be used for quantifying the TUG phases with accuracy sufficient for clinical applications; however, the MDC when using inertial sensors is not necessarily improved over less sophisticated measurement tools.

[1]  Lorna Paul,et al.  Reliability and clinical significance of mobility and balance assessments in multiple sclerosis , 2012, International journal of rehabilitation research. Internationale Zeitschrift fur Rehabilitationsforschung. Revue internationale de recherches de readaptation.

[2]  Diane Podsiadlo,et al.  The Timed “Up & Go”: A Test of Basic Functional Mobility for Frail Elderly Persons , 1991, Journal of the American Geriatrics Society.

[3]  N. A. Zakaria,et al.  Quantitative analysis of fall risk using TUG test , 2015, Computer methods in biomechanics and biomedical engineering.

[4]  P. Stratford,et al.  Assessing stability and change of four performance measures: a longitudinal study evaluating outcome following total hip and knee arthroplasty , 2005, BMC musculoskeletal disorders.

[5]  C. Blake,et al.  The reliability of the quantitative timed up and go test (QTUG) measured over five consecutive days under single and dual-task conditions in community dwelling older adults. , 2016, Gait & posture.

[6]  F. Horak,et al.  iTUG, a Sensitive and Reliable Measure of Mobility , 2010, IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering.

[7]  J. Fleiss,et al.  Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. , 1979, Psychological bulletin.

[8]  Edward D. Lemaire,et al.  A smartphone approach for the 2 and 6-minute walk test , 2014, 2014 36th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society.

[9]  M. Morris,et al.  Reliability of measurements obtained with the Timed "Up & Go" test in people with Parkinson disease. , 2001, Physical therapy.

[10]  Vimonwan Hiengkaew,et al.  Minimal detectable changes of the Berg Balance Scale, Fugl-Meyer Assessment Scale, Timed "Up & Go" Test, gait speeds, and 2-minute walk test in individuals with chronic stroke with different degrees of ankle plantarflexor tone. , 2012, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[11]  J. Echternach,et al.  Test-Retest Reliability and Minimal Detectable Change Scores for the Timed " Up & Go " Test , the Six-Minute Walk Test , and Gait Speed in People With Alzheimer Disease , 2018 .

[12]  Björn Eskofier,et al.  Timed Up-and-Go phase segmentation in Parkinson's disease patients using unobtrusive inertial sensors , 2015, 2015 37th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC).

[13]  Jeffrey M. Hausdorff,et al.  An instrumented timed up and go: the added value of an accelerometer for identifying fall risk in idiopathic fallers , 2011, Physiological measurement.

[14]  Linda Resnik,et al.  Change From Statistical Error Lower-Limb Amputations : Distinguishing True Reliability of Outcome Measures for People With , 2011 .

[15]  Nir Giladi,et al.  Association Between Performance on Timed Up and Go Subtasks and Mild Cognitive Impairment: Further Insights into the Links Between Cognitive and Motor Function , 2014, Journal of the American Geriatrics Society.

[16]  Brian Caulfield,et al.  Reliability of quantitative TUG measures of mobility for use in falls risk assessment , 2011, 2011 Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society.

[17]  Antonio I Cuesta-Vargas,et al.  Differences in trunk accelerometry between frail and non-frail elderly persons in functional tasks , 2014, BMC Research Notes.

[18]  Alison R Oates,et al.  Evaluation of an inertial sensor system for analysis of timed-up-and-go under dual-task demands. , 2015, Gait & posture.

[19]  Nigel H. Lovell,et al.  Tracking the Evolution of Smartphone Sensing for Monitoring Human Movement , 2015, Sensors.

[20]  A Galán-Mercant,et al.  Clinical frailty syndrome assessment using inertial sensors embedded in smartphones , 2015, Physiological measurement.

[21]  Antonio I Cuesta-Vargas,et al.  Reliability and criterion-related validity with a smartphone used in timed-up-and-go test , 2014, Biomedical engineering online.

[22]  Chris A McGibbon,et al.  Chair rise strategies in older adults with functional limitations. , 2007, Journal of rehabilitation research and development.

[23]  Kenton R Kaufman,et al.  Assessment of gait kinetics using triaxial accelerometers. , 2014, Journal of applied biomechanics.

[24]  Olivier Beauchet,et al.  Timed up and go test and risk of falls in older adults: A systematic review , 2011, The journal of nutrition, health & aging.

[25]  Andrew Hayen,et al.  Minimal detectable change for mobility and patient-reported tools in people with osteoarthritis awaiting arthroplasty , 2014, BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders.

[26]  Kotaro Minato,et al.  Quantitative analysis of the fall-risk assessment test with wearable inertia sensors , 2013, 2013 35th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC).

[27]  L. Portney,et al.  Foundations of Clinical Research: Applications to Practice , 2015 .

[28]  C. Hui-Chan,et al.  The timed up & go test: its reliability and association with lower-limb impairments and locomotor capacities in people with chronic stroke. , 2005, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[29]  C. Blake,et al.  Effect of a dual task on quantitative Timed Up and Go performance in community‐dwelling older adults: A preliminary study , 2017, Geriatrics & gerontology international.

[30]  L. Mollinger,et al.  Age- and gender-related test performance in community-dwelling elderly people: Six-Minute Walk Test, Berg Balance Scale, Timed Up & Go Test, and gait speeds. , 2002, Physical therapy.

[31]  K. Aminian,et al.  Reliability and validity of the inertial sensor-based Timed "Up and Go" test in individuals affected by stroke. , 2016, Journal of rehabilitation research and development.