The timed ‘Up & Go’ is dependent on chair type

Introduction: The timed ‘Up & Go’ (TUG) is a performance test identifying problems in functional mobility. More knowledge on how the type of chair used in uences test results is needed. Objective: To investigate inter-rater agreement on the time score and to assess if chair type used in uenced the performance of the test. Setting: (1) Inter-rater agreement investigation on the time score was carried out with elderly individuals living in a retirement home (n = 31). (2) Four types of chairs were tested on elderly individuals in three different health care centres (n = 100). Results: The two observers were close in timing (mean difference = 0.04 s). From a reference chair the median time for TUG was 15.7 s compared with 16.9 s from a chair with a low seat (p < 0.001). It was signi cantly more dif cult to stand up from a chair without armrests (p < 0.001), and from the lowest chair (p < 0.001), which was also the only chair dif cult to sit down on (p = 0.02). Conclusion: The inter-rater agreement of the time scoring of the TUG has been con rmed. Test performance is dependent on chair type; chairs with armrests and a seating height of 44-47 cm should be used. Clinicians must follow standard procedures and equipment when using the test or else risk invalidating test findings.

[1]  U S Nayak,et al.  Balance in elderly patients: the "get-up and go" test. , 1986, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[2]  C. Jagger,et al.  Randomised controlled trial of effectiveness of Leicester hospital at home scheme compared with hospital care , 1999, BMJ.

[3]  C. Jagger,et al.  Economic evaluation of hospital at home versus hospital care: cost minimisation analysis of data from randomised controlled trial , 1999, BMJ.

[4]  B. Atchison.  Occupational therapy in home health: rapid changes need proactive planning. , 1997, The American journal of occupational therapy : official publication of the American Occupational Therapy Association.

[5]  T. Nikolaus,et al.  Prospective value of self-report and performance-based tests of functional status for 18-month outcomes in elderly patients , 1996, Aging.

[6]  Mary Thompson,et al.  Performance of Community Dwelling Elderly on the Timed Up and Go Test , 1995 .

[7]  L. Rubenstein,et al.  The Association Between Chronic Illness and Functional Change Among Participants in a Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment Program , 1998, Journal of the American Geriatrics Society.

[8]  M. Palta,et al.  Risk Factors for Lack of Recovery of ADL Independence After Hospital Discharge , 1999, Journal of the American Geriatrics Society.

[9]  J. Poole,et al.  A review of balance instruments for older adults. , 1998, The American journal of occupational therapy : official publication of the American Occupational Therapy Association.

[10]  M. Patton,et al.  Qualitative evaluation and research methods , 1992 .

[11]  M. Simmonds,et al.  Psychometric Characteristics and Clinical Usefulness of Physical Performance Tests in Patients With Low Back Pain , 1998, Spine.

[12]  W H Eisma,et al.  The Timed "up and go" test: reliability and validity in persons with unilateral lower limb amputation. , 1999, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[13]  M. Tinetti,et al.  Identifying mobility dysfunctions in elderly patients. Standard neuromuscular examination or direct assessment? , 1988, JAMA.

[14]  R. Guy.  Social Research Methods: Puzzles and Solutions , 1986 .

[15]  U. Sonn,et al.  Instrumental activities of daily living related to impairments and functional limitations in 70-year-olds and changes between 70 and 76 years of age. , 1995, Scandinavian journal of rehabilitation medicine.

[16]  Douglas G. Altman,et al.  Practical statistics for medical research , 1990 .

[17]  J. Evans,et al.  Practical functional assessment of elderly persons: a primary-care approach. , 1995, Mayo Clinic proceedings.

[18]  Measures of Balance and Fear of Falling in the Elderly , 1999 .

[19]  S. Freter,et al.  Relationship between timed ‘up and go’ and gait time in an elderly orthopaedic rehabilitation population , 2000, Clinical rehabilitation.

[20]  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.

[21]  S. Lord,et al.  Factors associated with falling in elderly hospital patients. , 1994, Gerontology.

[22]  M. Tinetti,et al.  Predictors and prognosis of inability to get up after falls among elderly persons. , 1993, JAMA.

[23]  S. Arnadottir,et al.  Effects of footwear on measurements of balance and gait in women between the ages of 65 and 93 years. , 2000, Physical therapy.

[24]  R. Newton.  Balance screening of an inner city older adult population. , 1997, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[25]  Christianna S. Williams,et al.  Falls, injuries due to falls, and the risk of admission to a nursing home. , 1997, The New England journal of medicine.

[26]  J M Bland,et al.  Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement , 1986 .

[27]  Christianna S. Williams,et al.  Assessing Risk for the Onset of Functional Dependence Among Older Adults: The Role of Physical Performance , 1995, Journal of the American Geriatrics Society.