Clinical Measurement of Sit-to-Stand Performance in People With Balance Disorders: Validity of Data for the Five-Times-Sit-to-Stand Test

Clicks: 4
ID: 305151
2005
Free PDF
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Popular

Ranked #40 of 87 articles by views in Physical Therapy

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
People with balance disorders are characterized as having difficulty with transitional movements, such as the sit-to-stand movement. A valid and feasible tool is needed to help clinicians quantify the ability of people with balance disorders to perform transitional movements. The purpose of this study was to describe the concurrent and discriminative validity of data obtained with the Five-Times-Sit-to-Stand Test (FTSST). The FTSST was compared with the Activities-specific Balance Confidence Scale (ABC) and the Dynamic Gait Index (DGI).Eighty-one subjects without balance disorders and 93 subjects with balance disorders were recruited for the study. Each subject was asked to stand from a 43-cm-high chair 5 times as quickly as possible. The ABC and DGI scores were recorded.Subjects with balance disorders performed the FTSST more slowly than subjects without balance disorders. Discriminant analysis demonstrated that the FTSST correctly identified 65% of subjects with balance dysfunction, the ABC identified 80%, and the DGI identified 78%. The ability of the FTSST to identify subjects with balance dysfunction was better for subjects younger than 60 years of age (81%).The FTSST displays discriminative and concurrent validity properties that make this test potentially useful in clinical decision making, although overall the ABC and the DGI are better than the FTSST at discriminating between subjects with and subjects without balance disorders.
Reference Key
openalex_W2122190417 Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Susan L. Whitney, Diane M. Wrisley, Gregory F. Marchetti, Michael A. Gee, Mark S. Redfern, Joseph M. Furman
Journal Physical Therapy
Year 2005
DOI
10.1093/ptj/85.10.1034
URL
https://doi.org/10.1093/ptj/85.10.1034
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.