Timed "Up & Go" Dual-Task Tests: Age- and Sex-Specific Reference Values and Test-Retest Reliability in Cognitively Healthy Controls.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of the study was to establish reference values for the Uppsala-Dalarna Dementia and Gait (UDDGait) Timed "Up & Go" dual-task (TUGdt) test variables in cognitively healthy adults and to assess these variables' test-retest reliability. METHODS: For reference values, 166 participants were recruited with approximately equal numbers and proportions of women and men in the age groups 50 to 59, 60 to 69, 70 to 79, and 80+ years (mean age = 70 years, age range = 50-91 years, 51% women). For reliability testing, 43 individuals (mean age = 69 years, age range = 50-89 years, 51% women) were recruited. Two dt tests were carried out: TUGdt naming animals and TUGdt months backward, representing 8 test variables: time scores, costs (the relative difference between single-task and dt time scores), "number of animals," "number of months," "animals/10 seconds ," and "months/10 seconds ." Reference ranges for the variables were established by quantile regression in age- and sex-specific groups. For reliability, intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs), standard error of measurement, minimal detectable change, and Bland-Altman plots were used. RESULTS: Reference values for the TUGdt test variables are presented for the 2.5th and 97.5th percentiles. The reliability of TUGdt time scores was excellent (ICCs between 0.85 and 0.86). "Number of animals" and "animals/10 seconds" as well as "months/10 seconds" showed fair to good levels of reliability (ICCs between 0.45 and 0.58), whereas the reliability for both cost measures and "number of months" was poor (ICCs between 0.34 and 0.39). CONCLUSION: Normative reference values, potentially useful for clinical and research purposes, were presented in 4 age- and sex-specific groups from 50 years and older. Reliability for the test variables varied between poor and excellent, the lower estimates partly explained by some variables being the ratio of 2 other variables. In UDDGait, TUGdt tests are intended for diagnostic and predictive purposes, for which these tests are promising and require further investigations. IMPACT: Normative reference values and test-retest reliability results for the UDDGait TUGdt test variables were presented. These results should be useful for both clinical and research purposes.

Dual-task tests discriminate between dementia, mild cognitive impairment, subjective cognitive impairment, and healthy controls - a cross-sectional cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Discrimination between early-stage dementia and other cognitive impairment diagnoses is central to enable appropriate interventions. Previous studies indicate that dual-task testing may be useful in such differentiation. The objective of this study was to investigate whether dual-task test outcomes discriminate between groups of individuals with dementia disorder, mild cognitive impairment, subjective cognitive impairment, and healthy controls. METHODS: A total of 464 individuals (mean age 71 years, 47% women) were included in the study, of which 298 were patients undergoing memory assessment and 166 were cognitively healthy controls. Patients were grouped according to the diagnosis received: dementia disorder, mild cognitive impairment, or subjective cognitive impairment. Data collection included participants' demographic characteristics. The patients' cognitive test results and diagnoses were collected from their medical records. Healthy controls underwent the same cognitive tests as the patients. The mobility test Timed Up-and-Go (TUG single-task) and two dual-task tests including TUG (TUGdt) were carried out: TUGdt naming animals and TUGdt months backwards. The outcomes registered were: time scores for TUG single-task and both TUGdt tests, TUGdt costs (relative time difference between TUG single-task and TUGdt), number of different animals named, number of months recited in correct order, number of animals per 10 s, and number of months per 10 s. Logistic regression models examined associations between TUG outcomes pairwise between groups. RESULTS: The TUGdt outcomes "animals/10 s" and "months/10 s" discriminated significantly (p < 0.001) between individuals with an early-stage dementia diagnosis, mild cognitive impairment, subjective cognitive impairment, and healthy controls. The TUGdt outcome "animals/10 s" showed an odds ratio of 3.3 (95% confidence interval 2.0-5.4) for the groups dementia disorders vs. mild cognitive impairment. TUGdt cost outcomes, however, did not discriminate between any of the groups. CONCLUSIONS: The novel TUGdt outcomes "words per time unit", i.e. "animals/10 s" and "months/10 s", demonstrate high levels of discrimination between all investigated groups. Thus, the TUGdt tests in the current study could be useful as complementary tools in diagnostic assessments. Future studies will be focused on the predictive value of TUGdt outcomes concerning dementia risk for individuals with mild cognitive impairment or subjective cognitive impairment.

Timed Up-and-Go Dual-Task Testing in the Assessment of Cognitive Function: A Mixed Methods Observational Study for Development of the UDDGait Protocol.

New methods to screen for and identify early-stage dementia disorders are highly sought after. The purpose of this pilot study is to develop a study protocol for a dual-task test aimed at aiding the early detection of dementia disorders. We used the Timed Up-and-Go (TUG) test, which is a mobility task involving starting in a sitting position, standing up, walking three meters to cross a line on the floor, turning around, walking back and sitting down again. We combined TUG with the verbal task of naming different animals. Pilot study participants were 43 individuals with and without established dementia diagnoses who attended a clinic for memory assessment. Video-recorded test performances were systematically analysed. Deviant test performances concerning the interplay between test administration and participants' responses to the assessment instructions were revealed and led to refinements being made to the final study protocol. Exploration of the dual-task test outcome measures in a sub-sample of 22 persons, ten with and twelve without dementia, indicated that step-length and number of named animals after the turning point of the dual-task test might constitute appropriate measures for examining this kind of sample. We concluded that the refined study protocol is feasible for testing individuals undergoing initial memory assessments and healthy controls. Follow-up studies with larger samples are being carried out and will bring new knowledge to this area of research. It may also provide an opportunity for further studies exploring possibilities for broad clinical implementation.