| Abstrakt: |
Background and Purpose: Standardized screening tests that detect early mobility decline, regardless of etiology, are needed for healthy aging. The locomotive syndrome (LS) tests are designed to identify stages of mobility decline and inform appropriate levels of intervention. The long-term goal of this research is to develop standardized mobility screening tests that can be used across health care settings and throughout a patient's lifespan to guide appropriate medical care. As the first step in this process, this study examines the concurrent validity between the reference and the LS tests. Methods: This cross-sectional study examined correlations between the LS functional tests and a set of reference tests and the ability to differentiate the 3 stages of mobility decline. The reference tests included the stair-climbing test, the 30-second chair rise test, the 6-minute walk test, the Global Physical Health (GPH) portion of the PROMIS, and the Lower Extremity Functional Scale (LEFS). The LS tests included the Stand-Up Test, the 2-Step Test, and the 25-question Geriatric Locomotive Function Scale (25-GLFS). A total of 115 community dwellers of 61.2 years old on average (±10.0 years), with n = 71 (61%) older than 60 years, voluntary participated in this prospective study. Nonparametric analyses of variance and correlations were used to examine the concurrent validity. Results and Discussion: Performance-based tests were significantly correlated (| r | = 0.38-0.61, P <.001) with LS tests. The LEFS was correlated with all LS tests, but the GPH was only correlated with the 25-GLFS. Also, significant differences were found in reference test scores between the 3 LS stages (P <.05). Conclusions: The LS tests and reference tests demonstrated significant correlations, and participants performed significantly worse on reference tests as LS severity increased. Given these results, it is possible that the LS standardized tests may play an important role in mobility screening. Future research should investigate feasibility, sensitivity, and specificity of these tests. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
