JOURNAL ARTICLE
MULTICENTER STUDY
Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

Reliability and Minimum Detectable Change for Common Clinical Physical Function Tests in Sarcopenic Men and Women.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the test-retest reliability and minimum detectable change scores for seven common clinical measurements of muscle strength and physical function in a multiethnic sample of sarcopenic, malnourished men and women.

DESIGN: Each participant visited the laboratory seven times over 25 to 26 weeks. Reliability was assessed for each measurement from Familiarization 1 to Familiarization 2 (R1), Familiarization 2 to baseline testing (R2), Familiarization 3 to 12-week testing (R3), and Familiarization 4 to 24-week testing (R4).

SETTING: Data were collected during a clinical trial at 23 sites in the United States, Belgium, Italy, Mexico, Poland, Spain, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom.

PARTICIPANTS: Sarcopenic, malnourished, older adults (N = 257; n = 98 men aged 76.8 ± 6.3, n = 159 women aged 75.9 ± 6.6).

MEASUREMENTS: During each visit, participants completed the Short Physical Performance Battery (SPBB) and isometric handgrip and isokinetic leg extensor and flexor strength testing at a slow (1.05 rad/s) and fast (3.15 rad/s) velocity.

RESULTS: Handgrip strength, gait speed, SPPB score, and isokinetic leg extension and flexion peak torque (PT) had intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) that were significantly greater than 0 (all ≥0.59) at R1, R2, R3, and R4, although most of these variables demonstrated systematic increases at R1, and several exhibited systematic variability beyond the baseline testing session.

CONCLUSION: The ICCs and standard errors of the measurement (SEMs) generally improved with familiarization, which emphasizes the need for at least one familiarization trial for these measurements in sarcopenic, malnourished older adults. A three tier-approach to interpreting the clinical importance of statistically significant results that includes null hypothesis testing, examination and interpretation of the effect magnitude, and comparison of individual changes with the SEM and minimum detectable change of the measurements used is recommended.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

Related Resources

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app