This is CCNA’s 300th scientific publication, and the 2nd using COMPASS-ND data
Abstract
Background/objectives
Slow gait speed prospectively predicts elevated risk of adverse events such as falls, morbidity, and mortality. Additionally, gait speed under a cognitively demanding challenge (dual-task gait) predicts further cognitive decline and dementia incidence. This evidence has been mostly collected using electronic walkways; however, not all clinical set ups have an electronic walkway and comparability with simple manual dual-gait speed testing, like a stopwatch, has not yet been examined. Our main objective was to assess concurrent-validity and reliability of gait speed assessments during dual-tasking using a stopwatch and electronic walkway in older adults with mild and subjective cognitive impairment (MCI and SCI).
Design
Cross-sectional, reliability study.
Setting
Clinic based laboratory at an academic hospital in London, ON, Canada.
Participants
237 walk tests from 34 community-dwelling participants (mean age 71.84 SD 5.38; 21 female – 62%, 13 male – 38%) with SCI and MCI. were included from the Comprehensive Assessment of Neurodegeneration and Dementia (COMPASS-ND) study.
Intervention
Each participant performed seven walk tests: three single gait walks at their normal pace, three dual-task walks (walking and counting backwards by one, by sevens, and naming animals), and one fast walk.
Measurements
Gait speed (cm/s) for each walk was measured simultaneously with an electronic walkway (Zeno Mat®) and a handheld stopwatch (Ultrak chronometer®). Dual-task cost (DTC) was calculated for the three individual dual-task walks as [((single gait speed − dual-task gait speed) / single gait speed) ∗ 100]. Level of agreement between the two measurement methods was analyzed using Pearson correlations, paired t-tests, and Bland-Altman plots.
Results
Gait speed was consistently lower when measured with the stopwatch than with the electronic walkway (mean speed difference: 10.6 cm/s ± 5.1, p < 0.001). Calculating DTC, however, yielded very similar results with both methods (mean DTC difference: 0.19 ± 1.18, p = 0.872). The higher the DTC, the closer the measurement between methods.
Conclusion
Assessing and calculating DTC with a stopwatch is simple, accessible and reliable. Its validity and reliability were high in this clinical sample of community older adults with SCI and MCI.