Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
How Reliable and Valid are Dual-Task Cost Metrics? A Meta-analysis of Locomotor-Cognitive Dual-Task Paradigms.
Pike, Alycia; McGuckian, Thomas B; Steenbergen, Bert; Cole, Michael H; Wilson, Peter H.
Afiliação
  • Pike A; Healthy Brain and Mind Research Centre, School of Behavioural and Health Sciences, Australian Catholic University, Melbourne, Australia.
  • McGuckian TB; Healthy Brain and Mind Research Centre, School of Behavioural and Health Sciences, Australian Catholic University, Melbourne, Australia. Electronic address: Thomas.McGuckian@acu.edu.au.
  • Steenbergen B; Behavioural Science Institute, Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
  • Cole MH; Healthy Brain and Mind Research Centre, School of Behavioural and Health Sciences, Australian Catholic University, Melbourne, Australia.
  • Wilson PH; Healthy Brain and Mind Research Centre, School of Behavioural and Health Sciences, Australian Catholic University, Melbourne, Australia.
Arch Phys Med Rehabil ; 104(2): 302-314, 2023 02.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35940246
OBJECTIVE: To assess the retest reliability, predictive validity, and concurrent validity of locomotor and cognitive dual-task cost (DTC) metrics derived from locomotor-cognitive dual-task paradigms. DATA SOURCES: A literature search of electronic databases (PubMed, PsycINFO, MEDLINE, CINAHL, and Scopus) was conducted on May 29th, 2021, without time restriction. STUDY SELECTION: For 1559 search results, titles and abstracts were screened by a single reviewer and full text of potentially eligible papers was considered by 2 independent reviewers. 25 studies that evaluated retest reliability, predictive validity, and concurrent validity of locomotor-cognitive DTC in healthy and clinical groups met inclusion criteria. DATA EXTRACTION: Study quality was assessed using the Consensus-Based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instrument checklist. Data relating to the retest reliability, predictive validity, and concurrent validity of DTC were extracted. DATA SYNTHESIS: Meta-analysis showed that locomotor DTC metrics (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC]=0.61, 95% confidence interval [CI; 0.53.0.70]) had better retest reliability than cognitive DTC metrics (ICC=0.27, 95% CI [0.17.0.36]). Larger retest reliability estimates were found for temporal gait outcomes (ICC=0.67-0.72) compared with spatial (ICC=0.34-0.53). Motor DTC metrics showed weak predictive validity for the incidence of future falls (r=0.14, 95% CI [-0.03.0.31]). Motor DTC metrics had weak concurrent validity with other clinical and performance assessments (r=0.11, 95% CI [0.07.0.16]), as did cognitive DTC metrics (r=0.19, 95% CI [0.08.0.30]). CONCLUSIONS: Gait-related temporal DTC metrics achieve adequate retest reliability, while predictive and concurrent validity of DTC needs to be improved before being used widely in clinical practice and other applied settings. Future research should ensure the reliability and validity of DTC outcomes before being used to assess dual-task interference.
Assuntos
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Benchmarking / Marcha Tipo de estudo: Guideline / Health_economic_evaluation / Prognostic_studies / Systematic_reviews Limite: Humans Idioma: En Revista: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Ano de publicação: 2023 Tipo de documento: Article País de afiliação: Austrália

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Benchmarking / Marcha Tipo de estudo: Guideline / Health_economic_evaluation / Prognostic_studies / Systematic_reviews Limite: Humans Idioma: En Revista: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Ano de publicação: 2023 Tipo de documento: Article País de afiliação: Austrália