Test and Measures: Adult, 2012 TUG Page 1 · PDF fileTest and Measures: Adult, 2012 TUG Page 1...
Transcript of Test and Measures: Adult, 2012 TUG Page 1 · PDF fileTest and Measures: Adult, 2012 TUG Page 1...
Test and Measures: Adult, 2012 TUG Page 1 Do not copy without permission of Teresa Steffen
TIMED UP & GO TEST (TUG)
Type of test: Timed performance measure. The TUG is a test of general mobility.1
Time to administer: 1 practice trial and 2 recorded trials, with each trial usually taking less than 1 minute.
Clinical Comments: The multi-part directions can be complex for some persons, thus a practice trial is
always recommended.
Purpose/population for which tool was developed: The TUG was developed as a mobility test for geriatric clients.
The test contains the balance and gait maneuvers used in everyday life. The first authors to devise the instrument
used a 1 to 5 scale based on observer’s perception of the patient’s risk of falling.2 The second set of authors
1 did the
same test but timed it instead of using the 1-5 scale
Dual task use of TUG: Some authors have suggested using the TUG test along with challenging the client with a
dual task called the TUGO (obstacle).The obstacle can be a box (width 120cm, depth 20 cm) the height which varies
(0,5, 17 cm) placed 5 cm away from chair client steps over it in both directions.3
When appropriate to use: The TUG is most appropriate for use with the frail elderly who have diagnoses such as
CVA, Parkinson’s disease, rheumatoid arthritis, osteoarthritis, multiple sclerosis, hip fracture, cerebellar
degeneration, and general de-conditioning. The individual must be able to follow directions and must be able to
independently rise from a chair, walk at least 6 meters, and turn around, with or without an assistive device.
Scaling: The score for the TUG is in seconds (ratio scale). A lower score represents better (faster) performance.
Equipment needed:
Stopwatch, measuring to 100ths
Tape markers, 3 meters apart
Standard height chair (approx 46 cm / 18 inches), with arms and backrest
Directions: Measure in seconds, the time taken by an individual to stand up from a standard arm chair
(approximate seat height of 46cm / 18 inches), walk a distance of 3 meters, turn, walk back to the chair, and sit
down again. The subject should wear regular footwear and use his/her customary walking aid. No physical
assistance is given, but guarding for safety is appropriate. The client starts with his back against the chair, toes
behind the first tape marker, arms resting on the chair’s arms and the walking aid at hand. The client is instructed
that, on the word “go” he/she is to get up and walk at a comfortable and safe pace to a tape line on the floor 3 meters
away*, turn, return to the chair, and sit down again with the back touching the backrest. The person has a practice
trial then 2 timed trials that are averaged.
*Data collected in Table 1: a small plastic cone was placed on the 3-meter mark and subjects were instructed to walk around the cone
The tester may want to document the quality of the transition phases: rising from chair, initiating walking, turning
and descent into chair. Footwear and floor conditions (linoleum vs. carpet) make a difference in outcomes.4
Factors affecting performance: Ankle plantar-flexor and subtalar invertor muscle force accounted for 48% of the
variance in TUG scores 5 in a group of 39 people reporting no fall history. In a study of people with LE amputation,
age at amputation explained only 10% of the variance in the TUG scores and 1-leg balance explained 32% of the
variance.6 Self-efficacy explained 45% of the variance in TUG scores of older adults with knee OA (n=54).
7
Reliability:
Summary: Intra and interrater reliability are high (.92-.99) for adults with the exception of Botolfsen (2008)
study and lower on children (.85-.86)
Reference N = Sample description Reliability statistic
Intrarater reliability: same rater within one session (or one day)
Hughes, 19988 20 Community dwelling older adults ICC = .92
Katz-Leurer, 20089
Pediatric Physical Therapy
24
24
traumatic brain injury children (mean
age 9)
ICC(1,1)=0.86(CI .71-.94) SEM
0.60
Test and Measures: Adult, 2012 TUG Page 2 Do not copy without permission of Teresa Steffen
Journal typical developed children (mean age
= 9)
ICC(1,1)=0.85(CI .74-.92) SEM
0.23
Botolfsen, 200810
28 older people with impaired mobility ICC(1,1)==0.68
Yeung, 200811
24 Patients on an inpatient orthopedic
rehabilitation ward 1 day
ICC(2,2)=.80 (CI .56-.91) SEM 10.2
sec, MDC(90) 24sec
Interrater Reliability
Podsiadlo, 1991 1 60 Community dwelling older adults ICC =.99
Shumway-Cook, 1997 12
30 Community dwelling older adults ICC = .98
Noren, 200113
19 Dx/o RA or other peripheral arthritis,
median age = 55
Agreement = R = .97
Test-retest reliability on the TUG are generally high .85 in people with PD to .99 in community dwelling
elderly, & children with CP. MDCs was lowest 3 for people with Alzheimers and highest 15 for adults for
people in nursing homes.
Test-retest reliability: same rater over time (e.g., 2 days; 1 week)
author n= population time frame correlation coefficient MDC
Podsiadlo,
19911
60 Community
dwelling older adults
ICC = .99
Rockwood,
200014
1115 Community
dwelling older
adults, cognitively
impaired &
unimpaired
ICC=.56
Gan, 200815
26 Children with
Cerebral Palsy
7-10 days
Initial mean
25.9(30.4)
ICC=.99 ( CI 0.98-0.99) MDC=8.2
Manor, 2007 20 adults with
peripheral
neuropathy
7 days 1 trial ICC(1,1) = 0.93 (
CI 0.86-0.96)
2 trials ICC(1,1) = 0.00
(0.98-0.99)
4 trials ICC(1,1) = 0.99
(0.99-0.99)
6 trials ICC(1,1) = 0.97
(0.94-0.99)
Steffen, 200816
37 Clients with
Parkinson’s disease
7-10 days
initial TUG mean
15(10)
ICC (2,1) = .85
MDC=11
Nilsagard,
200717
43 multiple sclerosis,
in Sweden
1 week ICC(2,1) =0.91( CI 0.83-
0.95)
Ries,200918
51 Alzheimers disease
tests separated by 30-
60 minute rest period
Initial Mean
mild to moderate
AD19.95(9.81)
moderately severe to
severe AD
28.1(17.49
ICC=.985-.988
MDC(90) =4.09
MDC (95)= 3.3
MDC(95)=6.8
Nordin, 200619
78 older adults with
arthritis in nursing
homes
5-7 days
30(17.4)
ICC= .92
(1,1) and (3,1)
MDC=15
seconds
Campbell,
200320
9 males with
parkinsons disease
within 7 days ICC=.72 MDC=4.83
seconds
Noren, 200113
22 adults with arthritis 2-7 days r=.97 unable to
calculate
Test and Measures: Adult, 2012 TUG Page 3 Do not copy without permission of Teresa Steffen
Podsiadlo,
19911
22 older adults with
CVA,PD,RA, OA,
general
deconditioning,,
postsurg, hip fx
up to 5 weeks ICC=.99 unable to
calculate
Validity: TUG is correlated to gait speed around .70 in most studies. Many other tests are correlated with the
TUG but most at correlations .3-.5 There appears to be no gold standard to compare the mobility test TUG
with.
Construct / Concurrent Validity: It is difficult to always differentiate between these 2 types of validity. Evaluating this
property requires a “gold standard” measure with which to compare the tests results. Such a “gold standard” is often
not available.
Population N = Support for validity
s/p TKR and THR 78 The TUG is correlated with gait speed (r =.745 at admission, r = .816 at
discharge) unless gait speeds were faster than .5m/s or TUG scores faster than
30 s. The authors conclude that, in some elderly populations with orthopedic
problems, measuring both TUG and gait speed may not be necessary.21
Hip Fx 20 TUG correlated with FIM (r = -.47 at admission) and with self-paced walking (r
= -.68)22
Lower Limb
Amputation
84 TUG correlated with Frenchay Activities Index (r =-.486),23
Pre-total knee
arthroplasty
59 TUG correlated with: Voorips Questionnaire of physical activity (r = -.31). 24
clients with hip and
knee joint replacements
200 TUG scores correlate preoperatively with WOMAC (.29) and SF-36 physical
functioning (-.28) SF-36 role-physical (-0.21) at 12 week followup
WOMAC(0.43) p<0.0001 and SF-36 physical functioning (r=0-.39,) and SF-36
role-physical (r=0-.33)25
clients with lower limb
amputation
13 TUG correlates with 6 minute walk test (-.76)26
clients with hip
osteoarthritis
118 TUG correlates with WOMAC pain (.25), WOMAC function (.28) and SF-36
PF (-.34)It also helps predict the WOMAC function score when used in
regression.27
Older Adults in
residential care with
Mild Cognitive Imp.
17 TUG correlated with full turn test (r = .66), sit-to-stand test (r = .36), forward
reach (r = .57), one-legged stand (r= .31).28
Community dwelling
elderly
48 TUG correlated with: tandem balance (-.37); sit-to-stand (.37); grip strength (-
.40); bimanual dexterity (.46).29
30 TUG correlated with: composite score for Timed Movement Battery: self-
selected time (.89); maximum movement time (.79).30
20 TUG correlated with: Functional Stair Test (r = .59)8
60 TUG correlated with: Berg Balance scale (r = -.72), Gait Speed (r = -.55),
Barthel Index (r = -.51)1
81 TUG correlated with the four square step test (r = .88) and Functional Reach (r
= -.47).31
35 TUG correlated with: 4 of the 6 subscales of the Fast Evaluation of Mobility,
Balance and Fear Test (r = -.38 to .60).32
Frail Elderly 30 The TUG is correlated with all subscales of the SF-36: (r = -.36 to -.66).33
Home dwelling clients
with Parkinson’s
Disease
122 TUG scores correlate with UPDRS scores (.51-.58), H & Y scale (.45), and gait
speed (.21). When TUG was used in regression they were not shown to be
independent risk factors for falling.34
Older adults with
balance impairment
167 TUG correlated with: Maximal stepping task (r = -.68); rapid step test (r = .35);
tandem stance time (r = -.49); uni-pedal stance time (r = -.56); tandem walk (r =
.56); 6MW (r = -.75); POMA (r = -.65); EPESE physical function test (r = .50);
ABC (r = -.61).35
Test and Measures: Adult, 2012 TUG Page 4 Do not copy without permission of Teresa Steffen
40 TUG is correlated with: gait speed (r =-.75), postural sway path (r=.50), step
frequency (r=-.59), step length (r=-.74)2
30 TUG scores were significantly higher (p < .0001) for elderly persons who had
difficulty in turning than for elderly persons who did not have difficulty
turning.36
Clients with
Huntington’s disease
30 TUG scores correlate with UHDRSfor measures of gait speed(0.72)for velocity
(0.67) for stride length (0.42) for cadence dynamic balance (0.33) for double
support, and (.63) for support base in meters, , falls and gait patterning (0.16)
for falls, CoV stride length (0.45) step time (0.54), CoV step time (0.66) and
measures of functional limitations HD-ADL (0.4) and total functional capacity
(-0.68)37
Older adults, fallers and
non fallers
21 TUG correlates with accelerometry (.62), with Berg (-.77)38
Patients with
Parkinson’s Disease
65 TUG correlated with Dizziness Handicap Index (-.42) and Barthel Index (.39)39
Home dwelling clients
with Parkinson’s
Disease
122 TUG scores correlate with UPDRS scores (.51-.58), H & Y scale (.45), and gait
speed (.21). When TUG was used in regression they were not shown to be
independent risk factors for falling.34
Residents of long term
care facility
38 Higher levels of depression were associated with slower TUG scores (.30)40
Community dwelling
Post-menopausal
women in Australia
104 TUG (OR = 1.69, CI=.04-2.73) & speed of sound (SOS) calcaneal quantitative
ultrasound measurements helped predict falls risk.41
Older people in the
community
344 TUG correlated with Fall Risk for Older People-Community (FROP-Com )
(.63)42
Patients with type 2
diabetes
747 TUG (a measure of impaired mobility) was predicted by typed 2 diabetes,
female gender and BMI but not coronary stenoses or age,43
healthy older men 44 The study looked at the effect of graded doses of testosterone on physical
function and muscle performance TUG did not correlate with testosterone dose
or concentrations or changes in muscle strength or power.44
clients with multiple
sclerosis in Sweden
43 TUG correlated with 30 m timed walk test (.85) and with 10 m timed walk test
(.83).17
clients with acute stroke
(5 days post) in county
hospital in Sweden
Group1
30 in
2000 &
group 2
30 2004
TUG correlates with falls efficacy scale (FES) (-.70)/(-.55) and BBS (-.68)/ (-
.72) in group 1 & 2 respectively,45
postmenopausal women
with osteoporosis
53 mean
age 55
(43-73)
TUG and age (.42)46
adult survivors of
childhood acute
lymphoblastic leukemia
75 TUG was positively correlated with BMI (0.34)47
women with breast
cancer treated with
taxane chemotherapy
40 TUG correlated with COP (center of pressure), eyes open /head back (.55), eyes
closed/head straight(.50) and eyes closed/head back (.47)48
older adults in geriatric
unit of tertiary care
hospital
50 TUG correlated with L test( L test measure walking speed and resembles the
TUG except the path has 4 turns and is 20 meters) (.96),49
People with balance
deficits secondary to a
Vestibular disorder
32 TUG correlated with Four Square Step Test (FSST) (.69).50
community dwelling
older adults
67 TUG correlated with Ambulatory Self Confidence Questionaire (ASCQ)
(-.46) 51
elderly women 22 TUG correlated with height of subjects r=0.43 not age, body mass or BMI.3
Test and Measures: Adult, 2012 TUG Page 5 Do not copy without permission of Teresa Steffen
PD 79 TUG correlated to OARS,(.37-.58) UPDRS total (.67), UPDRS ADL (.52),
UPDRS motor (.66), and HY stage (.71)52
elderly people in Europe 59 Correlation between the TUG and the GMF subscales(Gross Motor Function
Assessment Scale); dependence (0.68), pain (.37) and insecurity (0.55)at
baseline and was about the same at 3 weeks and end of rehab.53
D/c ambulatory OP
rehabilitation patients
215 No correlation between TUG and phase angle (derived from resistance and
reactance measurements obtained from bioelectric impedance analysis)54
children
Children with cerebral
palsy
26 The TUG and BBS (-0.88), FRT(-0.77)15
children in a
rehabilitation hospital,
traumatic brain injury,
cerebral palsy and
typically developed
60
N=15CP
N= 15
TBI
N=30TD
TUG correlates with step length and time with TBI children using preferred leg
step length NS/.88, non preferred leg NS/.62 time preferred leg NS/.67, timed
non preferred leg NS/.43Children with typically development (TD) and CP did
not have any significant correlation on these variables.55
children in a
rehabilitation hospital,
traumatic brain injury
and typically developed
48 Step length and TUG correlates (.53) among children post TBI only (n=24)It
was not correlated to step time or correlated in typically development children9
Predictive Validity
Summary: TUG cut off scores of 12-14 seconds are often used to predict falling. Not all studies were able to predict
falls using TUG.
Population N= Results
Community dwelling
older adults
167 TUG scores, adjusted for age & gender, were significant predictors of fall risk
(odds ratio = 1.70; p <.05) 35
older people with
history of falls
78 TUG scores were predictive of falls for single fallers n=17, 21.02(6,35) vs
controls 17,07(2.76) p=0.025 and in multiple fallers n=22, 42.11(23.18) vs
controls 17.34(3.6) p<0.00156
clients with
Huntington’s disease
24 TUG scores predictive value for fallers for people with HD if ≥14 seconds.
Fallers (> or = 2 falls over 12 mos) TUG scores 15.6(7.7 to 52.6) non-fallers
12.6(7.7 to 16.6)57
Home dwelling clients
with Parkinson’s
disease
122 TUG scores were not predictive of falling at least once in the last 3 mos based
on logistic regression. Although the mean scores were different fallers (n=43),
15.1(9,0) vs non fallers (n=79) 11.9(5.8)34
Clients with suspected
normal pressure
hydrocephalus
87 Initial TUG scores were not different for responders and non responders to
cerebral spinal fluid drainage. They were different post-drainage 29.91 (52%) to
57.28 (11%) seconds respectively58
community living
elderly adults France
2368 Women and men had an increased risk of failure (>12 sec) on TUG, older
participants with higher BMI, lower clock test scores, poorer health score, and
women’s use of psychotropic drugs also predicted scoring less than 12 on the
TUG using logistic regression. The MMSE did not predict scoring on the TUG
using a cutoff of 1259
clients on an inpatient
orthopedic
rehabilitation ward
142 TUG scores did not predict of length of stay11
medical clients 147 Initial TUG scores predicted length of stay in hospital using regression analysis.
TUG score was associated with increased adjusted hazard ratio for an adverse
event in 6 months.60
healthy volunteers 100 There was no significant difference in TUG between fallers n=11and non fallers
n=71, 9.4(3.4) and 7.98(2.3) respectively61
clients with ALS 31 TUG correlated with risk of falling 10% in the next 6 mos using a cutoff of 14
sec62
Community dwelling
Post-menopausal
104 TUG (OR = 1.69, CI=.04-2.73) & speed of sound (SOS) calcaneal quantitative
ultrasound measurements helped predict falls risk.41
Test and Measures: Adult, 2012 TUG Page 6 Do not copy without permission of Teresa Steffen
women in Australia
elderly clients after
intravenous sedation
with midazolam
18 TUG correlated with dynamic balance test(CDP)(0.70)63
older adults 55 TUG was not correlated with disability components. It was correlated with
LLFDI(late life functional and disability Instrument) (-0.52)64
clients with hip fracture 196 Regression showed that poor TUG scores can be predicted with lower pre-
fracture function, increased age, having an intertrochanteric fracture,
performing TUG with a walker, and performing TUG in the later postoperative
period65
Discriminate Validity:
Population N= support for validity
clients with
Huntington’s disease
30 TUG discriminates between Huntington’s disease severity stages:
HD stage 1 9.29(2.06), HD stage 2 11.07(2.4), HD stage 3 17.00(9.72)37
clients with Parkinson’s
disease
79 TUG discriminated between H&Y 2 versus 2.5/3(graphs presented not #)52
Sensitivity/specificity:
Therapists need to use cutoff scores based on patient population they treat. The sensitivity/specificity on the
TUG is variable with little consensus amongst researchers.
Population N= Cutoff Score and Description Results
Identifying
independence
in basic
mobility
60 Scores < 20 sec (n=17 of 60): all subjects were independent in basic
transfers (chair & toilet); most were able to go outside alone and climb
stairs; and many were independent for tub or shower transfers.1
< 20 sec = more
independent with
basic mobility
Identifying
older persons
who fall
30 Cutoff score of ≥13.5 sec. (community dwelling older adults)66
sensitivity = 80%;
specificity =100 %
81 Cutoff score of > 13 sec: (community dwelling elderly)31
sensitivity =89%;
specificity = 67%
278 Cutoff score of >16 sec (longitudinal study of community dwelling
older adults, non-fallers)67
sensitivity = 54%
specificity = 74%
180 Cutoff score of ≥ 20 sec (community dwelling elderly)68
sensitivity = 10%;
specificity = 95%
Identifying
increased
dependency
in basic
mobility
60 Scores > 30 sec (n =26 of 60): subjects tended to show increased
dependency in that many needed assistance with transfers; most
needed help in/out of tub or shower; and almost all were unable or
needed help with climbing stairs. 1
> 30 sec = more
dependent with basic
mobility
Clients with
Parkinsons
disease
120 Mak, 200969
TUG time of ≥16 seconds was independently associated with increased
risk of falling (1 fall in past 12 mos) OR=3.86, CI: 1.05. 14.2
TUG cutoff score of 13.569
TUG cutoff score of 20.1
Sensitivity 87%
specificity 36%
Sensitivity 59%
Specificity 10%
clients with
vestibular
disorders
32 Whitney, 200970
TUG>11.1 seconds gaze stability test (GST) cutoff value <63 for
yaw70
TUG>11.1 seconds GST cutoff value <65 for pitch
Sensitivity 100%
specificity 89%
LR =9.1
Sensitivity 100%
Specificity 82%
LR=5.6
Test and Measures: Adult, 2012 TUG Page 7 Do not copy without permission of Teresa Steffen
post
menopausal
women in
Australia
104 Tan, 200841
The study looks at comparison of physical performance measurements
by osteoporotic fracture risk group
non osteoporotic group n=55
osteoporotic group n=49
TUG score
7.8(1.2)seconds
TUG score 8.4(1.4)
seconds
frail persons
living in
residential
care facilities
in Sweden
183 Nordin, 200871
(1 fall in 6 mos)
TUG cut-off 12 seconds
Sensitivity 98
specificity 13
TUG cutoff 15 seconds
sensitivity 96
specificity 32
TUG cutoff 20 seconds
sensitivity 79
specificity 32
TUG cutoff 25 seconds
sensitivity 62
specificity 62
TUG cutoff 30 seconds
sensitivity 49(
specificit72
TUG cutoff 35 seconds
sensitivity36
specificity86
TUG cutoff 40 seconds sensitivity26
specificity89
older
community
dwelling
women with
vertebral
fractures
104 Morris, 200772
predicting fallers (2+ falls)
TUG cutoff score 10 seconds
sensitivity 94.9%
specificity 10.6%
TUG cutoff score 15 seconds
sensitivity 71.8%
specificity 42.6%
TUG cutoff score 20 seconds
sensitivity 51.3%
specificity 63.8%
TUG cutoff score 25 seconds sensitivity 38.5%
specificity 76.6%
TUG cutoff score 30 seconds sensitivity 33.3%
specificity 85.1%
TUG cutoff score 40seconds sensitivity 20.5%
specificity 93.6%
TUG cutoff score 50 seconds sensitivity 12.8%
specificity 97.9%
clients with
unilateral
transtibial
amputation
40 Dite, 200773
predictive for falls (more than 1 fall in 6 mos)
TUG ≥ 19 seconds
sensitivity 85%
specificity 74%
older adults 974 Thrane, 200774
1 or more falls in 12 mos
TUG cutoff scores > 12 seconds n= (women/men) 239/114
sensitivity.44 /37%
specificity58/79%
TUG cutoff score > 13 seconds n=183/84
sensitivity 35/30%
specificity69/80%
TUG cutoff score >14 seconds n=142/190
sensitivity 26/20%
specificity75/90%
TUG cutoff score >15 seconds n=102/44 sensitivity 20/18%
specificity83/94%
TUG cutoff score >16 seconds n=86/27
sensitivity17/11%
specificty86/97%
TUG cutoff scores >17 seconds n=66/23 sensitivity 14/11%
specificity 90/98%
Test and Measures: Adult, 2012 TUG Page 8 Do not copy without permission of Teresa Steffen
older men
and women
with hip pain
from
osteoarthritis
106 Arnold, 200775
(one fall in past 12 mos)
TUG >10 sec n=77
sensitivity faller 73%
specificity faller
35%
sensitivity near-faller
081%
specificity near-faller
36%
TUG >11 seconds n=56
sensitivity faller 67%
specificity faller
55%
sensitivity near faller
68%
specificity near –faller
51%
TUG >12 seconds n=38
sensitivity faller 44%
specificity faller
70%
sensitivity near-faller
55%
specificity near- faller
70%
TUG >13 seconds n=30
sensitivity faller 33%
specificity faller
74%
sensitivity near-faller
45%
specificity near-faller
77%
TUG >14 seconds n=27
sensitivity faller
27%
specificity faller
77%
sensitivity near-
faller36%
specificity near faller
79%
clients with
hip fracture
surgery
59 Kristensen, 200776
TUG as predictor of falls within 6 months after surgery
cutoff point > or = 20 seconds
sensitivity 95%
specificity10%
cutoff point > or= 24 seconds sensitivity 95%
specificity 35%
cutoff point > or = 30 seconds sensitivity 84%
specificity55%
cutoff point> or = 34 seconds sensitivity 74%
specificity 35%
NOTE: Clinicians need to choose a cut-off score based on the specific purpose for which the test is used
Responsiveness / sensitivity to change:
Summary: TUG is a responsive instrument to use to measure functional mobility in persons with musculoskeletal
disorders, and is frequently used to assess patients in rehabilitation. Higher scores in seconds indicate more
difficulty with the task and are often used as predictor for falls, although no particular score is a gold standard for
this.
Test and Measures: Adult, 2012 TUG Page 9 Do not copy without permission of Teresa Steffen
Population
descriptor
N Reference, sample size,
intervention
Responsive
Yes / No
Data supporting
responsiveness
Community
dwelling
elderly
35 Gras, 2004 77
Rx 1: HEP hip strength/stretch
exercises
Rx 2: HEP ankle strength/stretch
exercises
Intensity: 5 days/wk, 3x/wk, x8
wks
no Mean scores (SD):
Rx 1:
Initial: 11.0(3.2) s
End: 10.3 (3.1) s NS
Rx 2:
Initial: 10.9 (3.4) s
End: 10.0 (2.0) s NS
99
Hakim, 2004
78
Rx 1 (n=29): Tai Chi exercise with
trained instructor
Rx 2 (n=29): Structured exercise
program
Control (n=41): no regular exercise
Intensity: 1-2x/wk for > 1 year
yes Mean scores (SD):
Rx 1 (Tai Chi): 8 (1.8)s
Rx 2: 9.5 (1.9)s
Control: 13 (7.7)s
Rx 1 (Tai Chi) >control
(p=.001), but Rx 1 = Rx 2
(NS)
45 Nitz, 2004 79
Rx: (n=24): functional balance
exercises + fall prevention
education
Control (n=21): open & closed
chain UE/LE ROM exercise + fall
prevention education
(see reference for excellent write-
up of interventions)
Intensity: 1 hr/session, 1x/wk, x10
wks
yes Mean scores (SD):
Rx:
Initial: 10.7(.6)s
End: 9.4(.5)s (p=.01)
Control
Initial: 10.4 (.7)s
End: 9.4(.5) (p=.018)
No significant diff between
groups
22 Robinson, 2004 80
Rx: (N=10 fallers, N=7 non-
fallers): falls prevention program
addressing strength, balance,
flexibility and education
Control (N=5): no intervention
Intensity: 50 min, 2x/wk, x 6 wks
plus daily by subjects at their home
not sensitive
to
intervention
Mean scores(SD):
Fallers:
Pre: 11.5 s
Post: 12.7s, NS
Non-fallers
Pre: 10.57s
Post: 10.86s, NS
Controls:
Pre: 8.4s
Post: 7.4 s, NS
Fallers and non-fallers needed
sign greater time to complete
TUG than controls (p<.01)
Community
dwelling
elderly
69 McMurdo, 1995 81
Rx 1 (n=21): stretching +
progressive strength exercises
Rx 2 (n=20): stretching exercises
Control (n=28): health education
Intensity: HEP with 24 daily
exercises, 15 min daily for 6 mos;
30 min visit from PT every 3-4 wks
for all groups
no Change in scores (pre to
post):
Rx 1: median = (-.1), range -
2.9 to 21.6, NS
Rx 2: median = (-1.8), range -
6.9 to 17.2, NS
Control: median = (.1), range
-18.3 to 47.1, NS
No significant diff between
groups
Test and Measures: Adult, 2012 TUG Page 10 Do not copy without permission of Teresa Steffen
Seniors living
continuing-care
retirement
facilities
47 Edelberg, 2000 82
Rx: no specific Rx
Prospective study monitoring
ability to manage medication, x12
mos
Appears to
show change over time,
without Rx
Mean (SD):
Initial: 13.1(5.9)sec
6 mo: 17.5(10.8) sec
12-mo: 18.6 (16.3) sec
Both 6 and 12 month times
changed sig. from baseline
(p<.05)
Community
dwelling older
adults with hx
of falls
45 Rose, 2000 83
Rx (N=24): dynamic balance
training
Control (N=21): no alteration in
daily activity; no ↑ in exercise
Intensity: 45 min sessions, 2x/wk,
x 8 wks
yes Mean (SD):
Rx:
Initial: 14.5 (8.9)
End: 11.8 (6.2) (p<.01)
Effect size: small-mod = -.30
Control:
Initial: 12.4(5.7)
End: 12.7 (5.4)
Effect size: small = .03
Sig. difference between
groups (p=.026), effect size:
mod = -.54
Seniors living
continuing-care
retirement
facilities
47 Edelberg, 2000 82
Rx: no specific Rx
Prospective study monitoring
ability to manage medication, x12
mos
Appears to
show change over time,
without Rx
Mean (SD):
Initial: 13.1(5.9)sec
6 mo: 17.5(10.8) sec
12-mo: 18.6 (16.3) sec
Both 6 and 12 month times
changed sig. from baseline
(p<.05)
Community
dwelling older
adults w/ knee
OA, awaiting
TKR
59 Thomas, 2003 24
No Rx
Adults w/ OA (n=59) compared to
adults w/o OA (n=79)
yes
Sensitive to
group diff
Mean (SD):
Males w/ OA: 10.0 (.5) sec
Females w/ OA: 13.8 (.4) sec
Males w/o OA: 7.4 (.5) s
Females w/o OA: 7.6 (.3) s
Group diff: p<.001
Older Persons 97 Hui, 200984
Intervention group n=52
23 sessions of dance over twelve
weeks
Control group n=45
no intervention
yes
Baseline 7.5(1.43)
three months 6.97(0.92)
change -0.58(0.95)
baseline 7.58(0.95)
three months 7.47(1.12)
change -1.12(0.62)
p=0.01
Clients with
hip and knee
joint
replacements
200 Gandhi, 200925
preoperative TUG scores n=200
12 week follow-up n=200
yes
18.6(7.9) seconds
12.8(4.7) seconds
p ˂ 0.0001
Residents of
geriatric
facility with
knee OA
24 Ng, 2003 85
Rx 1(N=8): Electroacupuncture
Rx 2 (n=8): low-frequencyTENS
Control (n=8): OA knee care &
education
Intensity: 8 sessions in 2 weeks, 20
min/session
yes Mean (SD):
Rx 1: initial: 22.25 (9.72)
End: improved 11% (p<.01)
2 wk p Rx: NS diff from
initial
Rx 2: initial: 26.25 (15.63)
End: improved 7% (p<.05)
2wk p Rx: NS diff from initial
Test and Measures: Adult, 2012 TUG Page 11 Do not copy without permission of Teresa Steffen
Control: initial: 32.19 (8.90)
End: no significant change
Older females
who have or
are at risk for
osteoporosis
31 Murphy, 200886
Intervention was 2x/wk 12 weeks
of Tai Chi 1day at home
yes
post intervention -1.4,
p<<0.0001 n=31
6 months post intervention
-1.4, p<0.0001 n=29
12 months post intervention
-1.1 p<0.001 n=30
older residents
living in
residential care
facility in
Aukland, New
Zealand
149 Peri, 200787
Intervention group n=73
individualized activity program
based on ADL 1x/week
control group n=76
no individualized program
no
baseline 29.2(2.4)
3 months 27.8(2.4)
6 months 30.2(2.4)
baseline 29.9(2.3)
3 months 28.4(2.4)
8 months 29.8(2.4)
p=NS
clients with
mild hip or
knee
osteoarthritis in
the Netherlands
104 Wetzels, 200888
Intervention was self
management by client in one of
four areas of exercise, weight
loss, use of walking aid or use of
pain medications
no
both groups improved in TUG
no stats givens
Clients
following total
knee
arthroplasty
66 Bruun-Olsen 200989
Intervention group n=30
CPM and active exercise
Control Group n=33
active exercise alone
yes preoperative TUG 12(4) s
3 months postoperative TUG
11(5) s
preoperative TUG 13±6 s
3 months postoperative TUG
12(6) s
elderly
inpatients
62 Tal-Akabi,200790
intervention group n=33 received
high intensity strength training 3
weeks
control group n=29 received
regular intensity strength training
Both groups
improved
baseline 27.6
final 15.90
p<0.0001
baseline 29.6
final 17.60
Community
dwelling
elderly with
OA
18 Hinman, 2003 91
With-in subject design with 3
conditions:
Condition 1: Untaped
Condition 2: wearing therapeutic
knee tape
Condition 3: wearing neutral knee
tape
no No significant difference on
TUG scores between
conditions, NS
Test and Measures: Adult, 2012 TUG Page 12 Do not copy without permission of Teresa Steffen
sedentary
adults
453 Shumway-Cook,200792
intervention group n=212
received 1 hour, three times per
week group exercise, 6 hours of
fall prevention education,
comprehensive falls risk
assessment
control group n=217
received written materials on fall
prevention
yes
baseline10.5(2.8)
final 9.1(3.5)
baseline 10.8(3.3)
final 10.1(4.4)
p=.005 between group
comparison
community
dwelling
elderly
individuals
with chronic
anemia
62 Agnihotri, 200793
phase 1 intervention weekly for
16 weeks, subcutaneous epoetin
alfa n=32
placebo=26
phase two crossover to opposite
treatment
epoetin alpha n=24
placebo n=30
no
27.9(2.8)
27.9(3.2) p=NS
23.8(1.7)
24.5(1.5 )p=.NS
community
dwelling older
adults
40 Cromwell, 200794
intervention group n=20, Tae
Kwon Do exercise class one hour
twice per week for 11 weeks
control group n=20 no exercise
yes
pretest 9.5(1.7)
posttest 8.6(2.1)
p<.05
pretest 11.3(2.7)
posttest 10.9(2.9)
community
living elderly
adults
37 Nakagawa, 200795
control group n=17
no exercise instruction
intervention group n=20
received instruction in trunk and
lower extremity strengthening
program. Told to exercise 2-
3x/week
yes
before intervention
male n=11 5.8(0.97)
female n=6 6.3(1.47)
after intervention
male 5.5(70) p=NS
female 6.0(.78) p=NS
before intervention
male n=13 6.9(2.43)
female n=7 61.(0.91)
after intervention
male 6.4(1.68) p=NS
female 5.7(0.90) p=NS
clients with hip
fracture
72
Ganz, 2007
96
surgical repair
mean(SD)
admission 6.95(43.9)
discharge 32.8(18.7)
p=0.001
Test and Measures: Adult, 2012 TUG Page 13 Do not copy without permission of Teresa Steffen
Women in
nursing home
10 Connelly, 1997 97
Rx: low intensity, progressive
resistance quad strengthening
Intensity: 3x/wk, x8 wks
strengthening (follow-up @ 1 yr
post exercise)
yes Mean scores (SD):
Post-exercise: 15.9 (7)s
1 yr after end-exercise:24.5
(15)s
P<.05
Frail elderly
residents of
LTC facility
20 Baum, 2003 98
RCT with semicrossover:
Rx: group exercise (n=11): group
exercise; seated strength and
flexibility
Control(N=9): Recreational
therapy (after 6 months this group
also began exercising)
Intensity: 1 hr, 3x/week for 6
months
Follow-up x 1 year
yes Mean:
Rx:
Initial:45 sec
End change: 18 sec faster
(improved)
Control:
Initial: 49 sec
End change: 5.5 sec slower
(worse)
Control crossover:
Initial: 49 sec
End change: 24 sec faster
(improved)
All data: Effect size: .54
Community
dwelling older
adults with dx/
o Diabetes
31 Brandon, 2003 99
Randomized repeated measures
controlled trial:
Rx (N=16): LE strength training
at 50, 60, 70% of 1 rep max
Control group (N=15): not
described
Intensity: 3 sets of 8-12
reps/exercise, 2.6 days/week for
24 months
no Mean (SD):
Rx:
Initial: 8.2 (2.1) sec
6 mos: 8.0 (2.5) sec
24 mo: 7.6 (1.8) sec, NS
Control:
Initial: 8.1 (2.2)s
6 mos: 7.4 (1.4) sec
24 mo: 8.3 (1.0) sec, NS
Elderly in adult
day care, with
dx/o mild
dementia
13 Thomas, 2003 100
(Ave MMSE=18)
Pretest-posttest design
Rx: Moderate-intensity
progressive resistive training of
Les using theraband Intensity: 1
set of 15 reps, ave. of 2x/wk for
6 weeks
no Mean (SD):
Pre: 25 (13.29) sec
Post: 21.3 (10.30)sec
14% improvement in TUG, NS
Effect size: -3.47 ±14 (small)
Frail Elderly LaStayo, 2003 101
Rx: High force LE eccentric cycle
ergometer
Control: traditional LE resistance
exercise
Intensity: 11 weeks, 3x/week, 10-
20 minutes
yes Mean (SD):
Rx:
Pre:16.65 (.81) sec
Post: 11.96 (.72) sec (p<.05)
Control:
Pre: 17.20 (.87)
Post: 15.55 (1.45) sec (p<.05)
Between group diff = NS
s/p Hip fx 56 Crotty, 2003 102
Rx 1 (n=28):early discharge /
home-based rehab program
Rx 2 (n=28): Hospital-based team
rehabilitation (usual care)
Intensity: no information
yes Median scores:
Rx 1:
Initial: 37s
After 1 yr: 19s, p<.003
Rx 2:
Initial: 41.5s
After 1 yr: 24.5s, p<.001
Test and Measures: Adult, 2012 TUG Page 14 Do not copy without permission of Teresa Steffen
Population
descriptor
N Reference, sample size,
intervention
Responsive
Yes / No
Data supporting responsiveness
s/p Hip fx 20 Mendelsohn, 2003 22
Rx: Intensive in-patient rehab
program
Intensity: approx 80 min/session,
5x/wk, 3-5 wks
yes Mean (SD):
Initial: 49(26) s
End: 28(9)s
p<.01
clients with hip
fracture in an
inpatient
rehabilitation
unit
20 Mendelshon, 2008103
Both groups received physical
and occupational therapy 5 times
a week
training group n=10 used an arm
crank ergometer 3 times per
week for 4 weeks
control group n=10 received no
additional training
yes
mean(SD)95%CI
admission 93.3(40.2) (67-120)
discharge24.7(8.7) (19-30)
admission91.2(23.6) (76-107)
discharge 39.5.4(12.34)(31-48)
p<.05 between group
comparison
clients with
total and hemi
hip arthroplasty
in treatment of
displaced
femoral neck
fracture
40 Macaulay, 2008104
Intervention: hemiarathroplasty
n=23
Intervention: total hip
arthroplasty n=17
no
16.5 (10.1)
17.2(13.5)
p=NS
older hip
fracture clients
53 Mard, 2008105
intervention group n=23
12 week supervised intensive
progressive strength-power
training twice per week
control group n-29 maintained
pre study level of activity
no
baseline 7.9(2.2) seconds
end 7.9(2.7)seconds
baseline 9.3(3.4)
end 8.9(2.5)
p=NS
clients in
inpatient
rehabilitation
unit
165 Gosselin, 2008106
intervention was inpatient
rehabilitation
comparison of TUG score of
patients older than 65 years
n=17
patients less than 65 years old
n=42
Yes for
rehab
No diff
between age
groups
differences between admission
and discharge
5.4(5.8) p<0.01
8.7(15.9)p<0.01
p=NS between groups
Women
postmenopause
53 Gunendi,200846
Group 1 n=26 postmenopausal
women with osteoporosis
intervention was submaximal
aerobic exercise program on
treadmill, lasting for 30 minutes,
twice a week for 4 weeks
group 2 n=25 postmenopausal
women without osteoporosis
received no intervention
yes
initial 7.1(0.6)
final 6.2(0.8)
p<0.001
initial 6.9(1.2)
final 6.8(1.2)
p=NS
Test and Measures: Adult, 2012 TUG Page 15 Do not copy without permission of Teresa Steffen
Nursing home
residents
31 MacRae, 1996 107
Rx (n=19): Supervised self-
paced walking program
Control (n=12): social visit,
1x/wk
Intensity: 5 days/wk, x12 weeks,
times increased 10% weekly
no Mean scores (SD):
Rx:
Initial: 24 (17) s
End: 36(27)s
Control:
Initial: 40(34)s
End: 34(14)s
NS
28 Carmeli, 2000 108
Rx: supervised group exercise
(warm-up; aerobics;
strengthening; stretching;
relaxation)
divided into males(A) and
females(B) and
younger old (1) and older old
(2):
Control (n=29): non-exercising
Intensity: 3x/wk, x12 week
no in
“younger
old”
yes in
“older old”
Mean scores:
Rx:
A1: pre: 9.2; post: 8.3s
A2: pre: 15.7; post: 11.4s (p<.05)
B1: pre: 10.2; post: 9.2s
B2: pre: 14.2; post: 10.1s (p<.05)
Control: pre: 9.1 s; post: 9.0 s
Older adults in
residential care
with mild
cognitive
impairment
17 Carmeli, 2003 28
Rx (N=17): ball exercises and
walking program
Control A: in residential care,
with cog imp (N=12): no Rx
Control B: in community, w/o
cog imp (N=20): no Rx
Intensity: 5 days/wk for 27
weeks
no Mean (SD):
Rx:
Pre: 24.2 (2.4) s
Post: 21.5 (3.6)s, NS
Control A:
23.9 (2) sec
Control B:
18.1 (3.5)
Controls signif diff than post-
exercise group: (p<.05)
26 Carmeli, 2002 109
Rx: (N=16) treadmill walking
program
Control (N=10): non-walking
group
Intensity: time initially 10-15
min and increased to 45min;
3x/wk for 25 weeks
yes Mean (SD):
Pre: 28.5 (4)s
Post: 25.9 25.9 (3) sec
Mean difference: -3.2 (9%)
(p<.05)
Outpatients with
hemiplegia, s/p
stroke
13 Geiger, 2001 110
Rx (N=7): same tx as control
group plus Balance Master
training
Intensity: 2-3 sessions/wk on PT
interventions (35 min), 15 min
on Balance Master
Control group (N=6): PT to
improve muscle force, ROM,
balance and mobility
Intensity: 50 min, 2-3 x/wk, x4
weeks
yes Mean change pre to post (SD):
Rx: -5.69 (5.64) sec
Control: -8.79 (9.68) sec
Diff between groups, NS
Combined groups:
Pre: 23.08(13.7)
Post: 14.62(11.18) (p<.008)
Test and Measures: Adult, 2012 TUG Page 16 Do not copy without permission of Teresa Steffen
Population
descriptor
N Reference, sample size,
intervention
Responsive
Yes / No
Data supporting responsiveness
clients post
stroke , long-
term survival
13 Sharp, 1997 111
Rx: LE strengthening &
stretching exercises
Intensity: (3 days/wk, 40
min/day, x6 wks)
no Mean scores(SD):
Initial: 31 (27) sec
End: 30 (27 sec)
Follow-up (4 wks): 31 (31) sec
NS clients post
stroke
46 Walker, 2000 112
Rx 1(n=16): regular therapy +
visual feedback training on
Balance Master
Rx 2(n=16): regular therapy + 30
min balance training
Control(n=14): regular PT/OT
therapy
Intensity: 2 hrs minimum, 5
days/wk, 3-8 wks
yes Mean (SD):
Rx 1:
Initial: 54.2 (34.4)
Discharge: 33.4 (20.3)
1 month p d/c: 28.2 (20.2)
Rx 2:
Initial: 45.8 (26.8)
Discharge: 21.3 (12.8)
1 month p d/c: 17.8 (9.8)
Control:
Initial: 52.8 (40.1)
Discharge: 29.3 (21.6)
1 month p d/c: 28.8 (25.2)
All groups improved
significantly over time (p<.001)
Bilateral
vestibular loss
9 Brown, 2001 113
Rx: Customized PT program,
with vestibular adaptation,
balance and gait training,
strengthening and flexibility
Intensity: 2-9 visits
yes Mean scores:
Initial: 22s
End: 18 s
p=.007
Dx/o
Osteoporosis
and vertebral fx
Papaionnou, 2003 114
Rx (N=37): Home-based
exercise program following
“lifestyle exercise”
Control (N=37): no exercise
Intensity: 60 min/day, 3 days/wk
for 12 months
no No significant change in TUG
scores after 6 or 12 months.
s/p Lumbar
surgery
Kumar, 2001 115
Grp 1: (N=28) Lumbar fusion for
degenerative disc disease
Grp 2: (N=28) S/p DDD surgery
w/o fusion
no NS difference between 2 grps
Persons
attending
geriatric day
hospital
Malone, 2002 116
Clients received at least 5 visits
yes Significant improvement at
discharge
Persons with
residual gait
deficits
50 Salbach, 2001 117
(SRM has
been used to indicate
responsiveness of a measure to
change; SRM = mean change
score / SD of change score )
yes SRM (standardized response
mean) = .73
stroke survivors
with low hand
function
3 Carter, 2008118
Intervention was structured
whole body, increased intensity,
activity dependent practice
strategy
yes meanTUG score
initial 14.9 seconds
post 6.8 seconds
Test and Measures: Adult, 2012 TUG Page 17 Do not copy without permission of Teresa Steffen
clients who use
cane for
ambulation
assist
47 Marston, 2007 119
Comparison of patients using
moulded vs conventional cane.
yes mean change in
tug score for moulded stick -
5.3(6.5) and for conventional
cane 1.8(3.9)
Older adults 1165 Dam, 2008120
In women, not men, lower
25(OH) Vitamin D levels were
associated with impaired
performance on TUG
yes
Men baseline 10.8(2.8)
absolute change baseline to
follow-up .22(2.4)
percent change 3.3(20.1)
Women baseline 10.9(3.1)
absolute change 1.19(3.1)
percent change 11.2(26.6)
Persons with
Multiple
Sclerosis
16 Widener, 2009121
The study looked at whether
weight placed on the trunk in
response to directional balance
loss would enhance function and
stability in people with MS using
BBTW( balance based torso
weighting )
yes
baseline15.2(14.1)
no weight 14.3(13.9)
BBTW 13.6(12.1)
p=0.03
chronic stroke
survivors
30 Wing, 2008122
intervention was comprehensive
stroke rehabilitation
yes pretest 31(7.8 )seconds
posttest20.2(3.9) seconds
p=.03
In hemiplegic
clients,
4 Pavlik, 2008123
TUG scores compared with AFO
and without AFO
mean with AFO 27.5(19.87)
without AFO 30.92(17.99)
p=NS
Community
dwelling older
people in Japan
71 Arai, 2007124
Intervention was 3 months of
exercise sessions
yes pre 8.3(3.2) seconds
post 7.6 (3.6)
follow up 7.9±4.2
p=0.01
post
menopausal
women in
Australia
104 Tan, 200841
The study looks at comparison of
physical performance
measurements by osteoporotic
fracture risk group
non osteoporotic group n=55
osteoporotic group n=49
no
TUG score 7.8(1.2) seconds
TUG score 8.4(1.4 )seconds
p=NS clients
following
transtibial
amputation
27 Johannesson, 2008125
removable vacuum formed rigid
dressing n-13
conventional rigid plaster of
paris dressing n=10
no
41(24) seconds
29(14) seconds
mean difference 14(-2-30)
p=NS
at the 3-month follow-up
Test and Measures: Adult, 2012 TUG Page 18 Do not copy without permission of Teresa Steffen
Population
descriptor
N Reference, sample size,
intervention
Responsive
Yes / No
Data supporting responsiveness
clients with
rheumatoid
arthritis in
warm or cold
climates
124 Staalesen Strumse, 2009126
intervention was 4 week
rehabilitation
Mediterranean climate n=72
Norwegian climate n=52
both made
progress,
climate did
not matter
baseline 13.9(2.4)
week 4 - baseline-1.5(1.4)ok
week 16 - baseline -0.7(1.6)
p=0.001
baseline 14.4(3.2)
week 4 -1.6(2.5)
p=0.001
week 16 -1.2(2.4)
p=0.002
No difference between groups
clients with
COPD from an
institutional
pulmonary
rehabilitation
program
19 Chang,2008127
The study assessed the effect of
an exercise task(6 minute walk
test) on TUG performance
no pre exercise score 8.77(1.95)
post exercise score 9.01(2.27)
p=NS
community
dwelling
elderly
19 Batson, 2008128
intervention was 2 weeks of
balance instruction using
Alexander technique
yes pretest average 11.22 seconds
posttest average 9.53 seconds
p=0.006
residents of
care homes
249 Sackley, 2007129
intervention group n=128
PT and OT targeted to mobility
control group n=121 received
standard care
no baseline 60(42)
three months 68(50)
six months 59(37)
baseline 57(54)
three months 59(56)
six months 55(37)
Effects of drug
therapy
TUG has been used to assess the effects of drug therapy 130, 131
especially the “on” and “off” phase
of the levodopa cycle in patients with PD.
Ceiling & floor effect: This issue has not been discussed in the literature. The TUG test is limited to those who can
independently stand up and walk 3 meters with or without an assistive device.
Reference data:
Subjects TUG
(N=10) (ages 70-84, mean 75 years)
Healthy men and women1
Mean =8.5 sec (range, 7-10 sec)
(N=20) (ages 65-86 years)
Independent community dwelling elderly persons8
Mean(SD) =13.05 sec (2.6)
(range 8.7-17.3)
(N=251) (mean age 74, range 60-95)132
Community dwelling older adults; study included 31 persons using an
ambulatory device and the test protocol varied from the original in use of a
10-foot distance from the chair to the turn around point and a 41-cm chair
height.
Mean (SD) = 15 sec (6.5)
(range 5.4-40.8 sec)
(N=92) People who return to the community after a hip fracture vs. healthy,
matched cohort (N=92)133
Follow-up was at 6-12 months after surgery.
Mean= 19s (s/p hip fx)
= 10.5 s (matched cohort)
*differences despite age and gender
match. This means many do not
return to prefracture lifestyle.
Test and Measures: Adult, 2012 TUG Page 19 Do not copy without permission of Teresa Steffen
(N=1805) (mean age=66)
Large study of clients awaiting THA or TKA, males and females134
Males Mean score= 14.3 + 7.5 sec
Females Mean score= 16.4 + 7.3 sec
(N=19) Subjects with total hip arthroplasty for osteoarthritis vs. control
(N=5) 135
Women awaiting arthroplasty took 2.2 times longer and men took
1.9 times longer to complete the TUG compared with their healthy controls.
Pre-op Patients= 14.3s
Control= 9.5 s
136
(n=240) Ambulatory middle aged and elderly subjects in Turkey TUG scores were significantly
different for age groups in males and
females. TUG scores decrease with
age. There was no significant
difference in the scores for fallers
and non fallers in the TUG
n=85, people admitted to acute geriatric or old age psychiatry ward in the
Netherlands in 2004-5137
median 19.3(5-134)seconds
54 n=215 ambulatory rehabilitation patients ,men 31.7(29.2), women 33.7(21.8)
Several studies give test scores for client populations.6, 32, 138-141
There is no consensus in the literature regarding the effect of aging on TUG scores.138, 140, 142
Vereeck 143
n=78 TUG time and age (0.82) Women score significantly less than men in asymptomatic
adults in Belgium
Table 1 shows reference data by gender for 60-89 year olds.144
Lusardi, et al (2003) reported TUG scores by decades
and gender for community dwelling elderly; sample sizes in the 80-89 year and 90-101 age groups are useful.145
These 2 data sets demonstrate an increased (slower) score on TUG as one ages.
Table 1.
Timed-Up and Go Scores: Means (X), Standard Deviations (SD), and 95%
Confidence Intervals (CI), by Age and Gender (seconds)
Timed-Up and Go
Age (yrs) Gender N X SD CI
60-69 Male 15 8 2 7-8
Female 22 8 2 7-9
70-79 Male 14 9 3 7-11
Female 22 9 2 8-10
80-89 Male 8 10 1 9-11
Female 15 11 3 9-12
Interpreting results: Two studies of community dwelling older adults showed that TUG scores >13 seconds
correctly categorized fallers (sensitivity 80- 89%).12, 31
Compare patient/client test results to the 95% confidence
intervals in the reference data, categorized by age and gender (see Table 1).
Test and Measures: Adult, 2012 TUG Page 20 Do not copy without permission of Teresa Steffen
References:
1. Podsiadlo DRichardson S. The Timed "Up and Go": A test of basic functional mobility
for frail elderly persons. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1991;39:142-148.
2. Mathias S, Nayak U Isaacs B. Balance in eldery patients: The "Get-up and go" Test.
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1986;67:387-389.
3. Demura SUchiyama M. Proper assessment of the falling risk in the elderly by a physical
mobility test with an obstacle. Tohoku J Exp Med. 2007;212:13-20.
4. Arnadottir SMercer V. Effects of footwear on measurements of balance and gait in
women between the ages of 65 and 93 years. Phys Ther. 2000;80:17-27.
5. Daubney MCulham E. Lower-extremity muscle force and balance performance in adults
aged 65 years and older. Phys Ther. 1999;79:1177-1185.
6. Schoppen T, Boonstra A, Groothoff J, et al. Physical, metnal, and social predictors of
functional outcome in unilateral lower-limb amputees. Arch Phys Med Rehabil.
2003;84:803-811.
7. Maly MR, Costigan PA Olney SJ. Contribution of psychosocial and mechanical variables
to physical performance measures in knee osteoarthritis. Phys Ther. 2005;85(12):1318-
1328.
8. Hughes C, Osman C Woods AK. Relationship among performance on stair ambulation,
functional reach, and timed up and go tests in older adults. Issues Ageing. 1998;21:18-22.
9. Katz-Leurer M, Rotem H, Lewitus H, Keren O Meyer S. Relationship between balance
abilities and gait characteristics in children with post-traumatic brain injury. Brain Inj.
2008;22:153-159.
10. Botolfsen P, Helbostad J, Moe-Nilssen R Wall J. Reliability and concurrent validity of
the Expanded Timed Up-and-Go test in older people with impaired mobility. Physio Res
Inter. 2008;13:94-106.
11. Yeung T, Wessel J, Stratford P MacDermid J. The timed up and go test for use on an
inpatient orthopaedic rehabilitation ward. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2008;38:410-417.
12. Horak FB, Henry SM Shumway-Cook A. Postural pertubations: New insights for
treatment of balance disorders. Phys Ther. 1997;77:517-533.
13. Noren A, Bogren U, Bolin J Stenstrom C. Balance assessment in patients with peripheral
arthritis: applicability and reliability of some clinical assessments. Physiother Res Int.
2001;6:193-204.
14. Rockwood K, Awalt E, Carver D MacKnight C. Feasibility and mesurement properties of
the functional reach and the timed up and go tests in the Canadian study of health and
aging. J Gerontol Med Sci. 2000;55A:M70-M73.
15. Gan S, Tung L, Tang Y Wang C. Psychometric properties of functional balance
assessment in children with cerebral palsy. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2008;22:745-
753.
16. Steffen TSeney M. Test-retest reliability and minimal detectable change on balance and
ambulation tests, the 36-item short form health survey, and the unified Parkinson disease
rating scale in people with Parkinsonism. Phys Ther. 2008;88:733-746.
17. Nilsagard Y, Lundholm C, Gunnarsson L Denison E. Clinical relevance using timed walk
tests and 'timed up and go' testing in persons with multiple sclerosis. Physiother Res Int.
2007;12:105-114.
Test and Measures: Adult, 2012 TUG Page 21 Do not copy without permission of Teresa Steffen
18. Ries J, Echternach J, Nof L Blodgett M. Test-retest reliability and minimal detectable
change scores for the timed up & go test, the six-minute walk test, and gait speed in
people with alzheimer disease. Phys Ther. 2009;89:569-579.
19. Nordin E, Rosendahl E Lundin-Olsson L. Timed "up & go" test: reliability in older
people dependent in acivities of daily living - focus on cognitive state. Phys Ther.
2006;86 646-655.
20. Campbell F, Ashburn A Thomas P. An exploratory study of the consistency of balance
control and the mobility of people with Parkinson's disease (PD) between medication
doses. Clin Rehabil. 2003;17:318-324.
21. Freter SFruchter N. Relationship between timed 'up and go' and gait time in an elderly
orthopaedic rehabilitation population. Clin Rehabil. 2000;14:63-71.
22. Mendelsohn M, Leidl D, Overend T Petrella R. Specificity of functional mobility
measures in older adults after hip fracture a pilot study. Am J Phys Med Rehabil.
2003;82:766-774.
23. Miller W, Deathe A Harris J. Measurement properties of the Frenchay activities index
among individuals with a lower limb amputation. Clin Rehabil. 2004;18:414-422.
24. Thomas S, Pagura S Kennedy D. Physical activity and its relationship to physical
performance in patients with end stage knee osteoarthritis. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther.
2003;33:745-754.
25. Gandhi R, Tsvetkov D, Davey J, Syed K Mahomed N. Relationship between self-
reported and performance-based tests in a hip and knee joint replacement population.
Clin Rheumatol. 2009;28:253-257.
26. Lin SBose N. Six-minute walk test in persons with transtibial amputation. Arch Phys Med
Rehabil. 2008;89:2354-2359.
27. Juhakoski R, Tenhonen S, Anttonen T, Kauppinen T Arokoski J. Factors affecting self
reported pain and physical function in patients with hip osteoarthritis. Arch Phys Med
Rehabil. 2008;89:1066-1073.
28. Carmeli E, Bar-Chad S Lotan M. Five clinical tests to assess balance following ball
exercises and treadmill training in adult persons with intellectual disability. J Gerontol.
2003;58A:M767-M772.
29. Matthews M, Lucas A, Boland R, et al. Use of a questionanaire to screen for fraility in
the elderly: an exploratory study. Aging Clin Exp Res. 2004;16:34-40.
30. Creel G, Light K Thigpen M. Concurrent and construct validity of scores on the timed
movement battery. Phys Ther. 2001;81:789-798.
31. Dite WTemple V. A clinical test of stepping and change of direction to identify multiple
falling older adults. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2002;83:1566-1571.
32. DiFabio R. Use of the "Fast Evaluation of Mobility, Balance and Fear in elderly
community dwellers. Phys Ther. 1997;77:904-917.
33. Payette H, Hanusaik N, Boutier V, Morais J Gray-Donald K. Muscle strength and
functional mobility in relation to lean body mass in free-living frail elderly women. Eur J
Clin Nutr. 1998;52:45-53.
34. Matinolli M, Korpelainen J, Korpelainen S, et al. Mobility and balance in Parkinson's
disease: a population-based study. Eur J Neurol. 2009;16:105-111.
35. Cho B-l, Scarpace D Alexander N. Tests of stepping as indicators of mobility, balance,
and fall risk in balance-impaired older adults. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2004;vol. 52:p. 1168-
1173.
Test and Measures: Adult, 2012 TUG Page 22 Do not copy without permission of Teresa Steffen
36. Thigpen M, Light K, Creel G Flynn S. Turning difficulty characteristics of adults aged 65
years or older. Phys Ther. 2000;80:1174-1187.
37. Rao A, Muratori L, Louis E, Moskowitz C Marder K. Clinical measurement of mobility
and balance impairments in Huntington's disease: validity and responsiveness. Gait
Posture. 2009;29:433-436.
38. O'Sullivan M, Blake C, Cunningham C, Boyle G Finucane C. Correlation of
accelerometry with clinical balance tests in older fallers and non-fallers. Age Ageing.
2009;38:308-313.
39. Rossi M, Soto A, Santos S, Sesar A Labella T. A prospective study of alterations in
balance among patients with Parkinson's disease. Protocol of the postural evaluation. Eur
Neurol. 2009;61:171-176.
40. Grieger J, Nowson C Ackland L. Nutritional and functional status indicators in residents
of a long-term care facility. J Nutr Elder. 2009;28:47-60.
41. Tan B, Price R, Briffa N, et al. Assessment of osteoporotic fracture risk in community
settings: a study of post-menopausal women in Australia. Health Soc Care Community.
2008;16:621-628.
42. Russell M, Hill K, Blackbery I, Day L Dharmage S. The reliability and predictive
accuracy of the falls risk for older people in the community assessment (FROP-Com)
tool. Age Ageing. 2008;37:634-639.
43. Saely C, Dyballa T, Vonbank A, et al. Type 2 diabetes but not coronary atheroscierosis is
an independent determinant of impaired mobility in angiographied coronary patients.
Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2008;82:185-189.
44. Storer T, Woodhouse L, Magliano L, et al. Changes in muscle mass, muscle strength, and
power but not physical function are related to testosterone dose in healthy older men. J
Am Ger Soc. 2008;56:1991-1999.
45. Engberg W, Lind A, Linder A, Nilsson L Sernert N. Balance-related efficacy compared
with balance function in patients with acute stroke. Physio Theory Prac. 2008;24:105-
111.
46. Gunendi Z, Ozyemisci-Taskiran O Demirsoy N. The effect of 4-week aerobic exercise
program on postural balance in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. Rheumatol
Int. 2008;28:1217-1222.
47. Ness K, Baker K, Dengel D, et al. Body composition, muscle strength deficits and
mobility limitations in adult survivors of childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia.
Pediatric Blood & Cancer. 2007;49:975-981.
48. Wampler M, Topp K, Miaskowski C, et al. Quantitative and clinical description of
postural instability in women with breast cancer treated with taxane chemotherapy. Arch
Phys Med Rehabil. 2007;88:1002-1008.
49. Nguyen V, Miller W, Asano M Wong R. Measurement properties of the L test for gait in
hospitalized elderly. J Am Phys Med Rehabil. 2007;86:463-468.
50. Whitney S, G. Marchetti, L. O. Morris Sparto PJ. The reliability and validity of the four
square step test for people with balance deficits secondary to a vestibular disorder. Arch
Phys Med Rehabil. 2007;88:99-104.
51. Asano M, Miller W Eng J. Development and psychometric properties of the ambulatory
self-confidence questionnaire. Gerontology. 2007;53:373-381.
52. Tanji H, Gruber-Baldini A, Anderson K, et al. A comparative study of physical
performance measures in Parkinson's disease. Mov Disord. 2008;23:1897-1905.
Test and Measures: Adult, 2012 TUG Page 23 Do not copy without permission of Teresa Steffen
53. Gustafsson UGrahan B. Validation of the general motor function assessment scale-an
instrument for the elderly. Disabil Rehabil. 2008;30:1177-1184.
54. Gunn S, Halbert J, Giles L, et al. Bioelectrical phase angle values in a clinical sample of
ambulatory rehabilitation patients. Dyn Med. 2008;7:14.
55. Katz-Leurer M, Rotem H, Keren O Meyer S. Balance abilities and gait characteristics in
post-traumatic brain injury, cerebral palsy and typically developed children. Dev
Neurorehabil. 2009;12:100-105.
56. Chiu A, Au-Yeung S Lo S. A comparison of four functional tests in discriminating fallers
from non-fallers in older people. Disabil Rehabil. 2003;25:45-50.
57. Busse ME, Wiles CM Rosser AE. Mobility and falls in people with Huntington's disease.
J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2009):88-90.
58. Feick D, Sickmond J, Liu L, et al. Sensitivity and predictive value of occupational and
physical therapy assessments in the functional evaluatoin of patients with suspected
normal pressure hydrocephalus. J Rehabil Med. 2008;40:715-720.
59. Manckoundia P, Buatois S, Gueguen R, et al. Clinical determinants of failure in balance
tests in elderly subjects. Arch Gerontol Geriat. 2008;47:217-228.
60. Wong RMiller W. Adverse outcomes following hospitalization in acutely ill older
patients. BMC Geriatrics. 2008;8:10.
61. Melzer I, Kurz I, Shahar D, Levi M Oddsson L. Application of the voluntary step
execution test to identify elderly fallers. Age Ageing. 2007;36:532-537.
62. Montes J, Cheng B, Diamond B, et al. The Timed Up and Go test: predicting falls in
ALS. Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis. 2007;8:292-295.
63. Fujisawa T, Takuma S, Koseki H, Kimura K Fukushima K. Correlation between precise
and simple tests in recovery of dynamic balance function after intravenous sedation with
midazolam in the elderly. J Anesth. 2007;21:153-158.
64. Melzer I, Kurz I, Sarid O Jette A. Relationship between self-reported function and
disability and balance performance measures in the elderly. J Rehabil Res Dev.
2007;44:685-691.
65. Kristensen M, Foss N Kehlet H. Factors with independent influence on the 'timed up and
go' test in patients with hip fracture. Physiother Res Int. 2009;14:30-41.
66. Shumway Cook A, Baldwin M, Polissar N Gruber W. Predicting the probability for falls
in community-dwelling older adults. Phys Ther. 1997;77:812-819.
67. Okumiya K. The "Timed Up & Go" test is a useful predictor of falls in community-
dwelling older people. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1998;46:928-929.
68. Trueblood P, Hodson-Chennault N, McCubbin A Youngclarke D. Performance and
impairment-based assessments among comunity dwelling elderly: sensitivity and
specificity. Issues Aging. 2001;24:2-6.
69. Mak MPang M. Balance confidence and functional mobility are independently associated
with falls in people with Parkinson's disease. J Neurol 2009;256:742-749.
70. Whitney S, Marchetti G, Pritcher M Furman J. Gaze stabilization and gait performance in
vestibular dysfunction. Gait Posture. 2009;29:194-198.
71. Nordin E, Lindelof N, Rosendahl E, Jensen J Lundin-Olsson L. Prognostic validity of the
Timed Up-and-Go test, a modified Get-Up-and-Go test, staff's global judgement and fall
history in evaluating fall risk in residential care facilities. Age Ageing. 2008;37:442-448.
Test and Measures: Adult, 2012 TUG Page 24 Do not copy without permission of Teresa Steffen
72. Morris R, Harwood R, Baker R, et al. A comparison of different balance tests in the
prediction of falls in older women with vertebral fractures: a cohort study. Age Ageing.
2007;36:78-83.
73. Dite W, Connor H Curtis H. Clinical identification of multiple fall risk early after
unilateral transtibial amputation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2007;88:109-114.
74. Thrane G, Joakimsen R Thornquist E. The association between timed up and go test and
history of falls: the Tromso study. BMC Geriatrics. 2007;7:1.
75. Arnold CFaulkner R. The history of falls and the association of the timed up and go test
to falls and near-falls in older adults with hip osteoarthritis. BMC Geriatrics. 2007;7:pp.
17.
76. Kristensen M, Foss N Kehlet H. Timed "up & go" test as a predictor of falls within 6
months after hip fracture surgery. Phys Ther. 2007;87:24-30.
77. Gras L, Levangie P, Goodwin-Segal M Lawrence D. A comparison of hip versus ankle
exercises in elders and the influence on balance and gait. J Geriatric Phys Ther.
2004;27:39-46.
78. Hakim R, DiCicco J, Burke J, Hoy T Roberts E. Differences in balance related measures
among older adults participating in Tai Chi, structured exercise, or no exercise. J Geriatr
Phys Ther. 2004;27:11-15.
79. Nitz JChoy N. The efficacy of a specific balance-strategy training programme for
preventing falls among older people: a pilot randomised controlled trial. Age Ageing.
2004;33:52-58.
80. Robinson B, Gordon J, Wallentine S Visio M. Relationship between lower-extremity
joint torque and the risk for falls in a group of community dwelling older adults.
Physiother Theory Pract. 2004;20:155-173.
81. McMurdo MJohnstone R. A randomized controlled trial of a home exercise programme
for elderly people with poor mobility. Age Ageing. 1995;24:425-428.
82. Edelberg H, Shallenberger E, Hausdorff J Wei J. One-year follow-up of medication
management capacity in highly functioning older adults. J Gerontol Med Sci.
2000;55A:M550-M553.
83. Rose DClark S. Can the Control of Bodily Orientation Be Significantly Improved in a
Group of Older Adults with a History of Falls? J Am Geriatr Soc. 2000;48:275-282.
84. Hui E, Chui B Woo J. Effects of dance on physical and psychological well-being in older
persons. Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2009;49:e45-50.
85. Ng M, Leung M Poon D. The effects of electro-acupuncture and transcutaneous electrical
nerve stimulation on paitents with painful osteoarthritic knees: a randomized controlled
trial with follow-up evaluation. J Altern Comp Med. 2003;9:641-649.
86. Murphy LSingh B. Effects of 5-form, Yang Style Tai Chi on older females who have or
are at risk for developing osteoporosis. Physiother Theory Pract. 2008;24:311-320.
87. Peri K, Kerse N, Robinson E, et al. Does functionally based activity make a difference to
health status and mobility? A randomised controlled trial in residential care facilities (The
Promoting Independent Living Study; PILS). Age Ageing. 2008;37:57-63.
88. Wetzels R, van Weel C, Grol R Wensing M. Family practice nurses supporting self-
management in older patients with mild osteoarthritis: a randomized trial. BMC Family
Practice. 2008;9:7.
Test and Measures: Adult, 2012 TUG Page 25 Do not copy without permission of Teresa Steffen
89. Bruun-Olsen V, Heiberg K Mengshoel A. Continuous passive motion as an adjunct to
active exercises in early rehabilitation following total knee arthroplasty-a randomized
controlled trial. Dis Rehabil. 2009;31:277-283.
90. Tal-Akabi A, Steiger U Villiger P. Neuromuscular adaptation to early post-operative,
high-intensity, short resistance training of non-operated lower extremity in elderly
patients: a randomized controlled trial. J Rehabil Med. 2007;39:724-729.
91. Hinman R, Bennell K, Crossley K McConnell J. Immediate effects of adhesive tape on
pain and disability in individuals with knee osteoarthritis. Rheum. 2003;42:865-869.
92. Shumway-Cook A, Silver I, LeMier M, et al. Effectiveness of a Community-Based
Multifactorial Intervention on Falls and Fall Risk Factors in Community-Living Older
Adults: A Randomized, Controlled Trial. J Gerontol. 2007;62A:1420-1427.
93. Agnihotri P, Telfer M, Butt Z, et al. Chronic anemia and fatigue in elderly patients:
results of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover exploratory study
with epoetin alfa. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2007;55:1557-1565.
94. Cromwell R, Meyers P, Meyers P Newton R. Tae Kwon Do: an effective exercise for
improving balance and walking ability in older adults. J Gerontol Med Sci.
2007;62A:641-646.
95. Nakagawa K, Inomata N, Nakazawa R Sakamoto M. The effect of a health promotion
program consisting of easy and simple exercises for community living elderly people. J
Phys Ther Sci. 2007;19:235-242.
96. Ganz S, Peterson M, Russo P Guccione A. Functoinal recovery after hip fracture in the
subacute setting. HSSJ. 2007;3:50-57.
97. Connelly DVandervoort A. Effects of detraining on knee extensor strength and functional
mobility in a group of elderly women. J Othop Sports Phys Ther. 1997;26:340-346.
98. Baum E, Jarjoura D, Polen A, Faur D Rutecki G. Effectiveness of a group exercise
program in a long-term care facility: A randomized pilot trial. J Am Med Dir Assoc.
2003;4:74-80.
99. Brandon L, Gaasch D, Boyette L Lloyd A. Effects of long-term resistive training on
mobility and strength in older adults with diabetes. Gerontology. 2003;58A:740-745.
100. Thomas VHageman P. Can neuromuscular strength and function in people with dementia
be rehabilitated using resistance-exercise traininging? Results from a preliminary
intervention study. J Gerontol Med Sci. 2003;58A:746-751.
101. LaStayo P, Ewy G, Pierotti D, Johns R Lindstedt S. The positive effects of negative
work: Increased muscle strength and decreased fall risk in a frail elderly population. J
Gerontol Med Sci. 2003;58A:419-424.
102. Crotty M, Whitehead C, Miller M, NutrDiet M Gray S. Patient and caregiver outcomes
12 months after home-based therapy for hip fracture: A randomized controlled trial. Arch
Phys Med Rehabil. 2003;84:1237-1239.
103. Mendelsohn M, Overend T, Connelly D Petrella R. Improvement in aerobic fitness
during rehabilitation after hip fracture. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2008;89:609-617.
104. Macaulay W, Nellans K, Iorio R, et al. Total hip arthroplasty is less painful at 12 months
compared with hemiarthroplasty in treatment of displaced femoral neck fracture. HSSJ.
2008;4:48-54.
105. Mard M, Vaha J, Heinonen A, et al. The effects of muscle strength and power training on
mobility among older hip fracture patients. Adv Physiother. 2008;10:195-202.
Test and Measures: Adult, 2012 TUG Page 26 Do not copy without permission of Teresa Steffen
106. Gosselin S, Desrosiers J, Corriveau H, et al. Outcomes during and after inpatient
rehabilitation: Comparison between adults and older adults. J Rehabil Med. 2008;40:55-
60.
107. MacRae P, Asplund L, Schnelle J, et al. A walking program for nursing home residents:
Effects on walk endurance, physical activity, mobility, and quality of life. J Am Geriatr
Soc. 1996;44:175-180.
108. Carmeli E, Reznick A, Coleman R Carmeli V. Muscle strength and mass of lower
extremities in relation to functional abilities in elderly adults. Gerontology. 2000;46:249-
257.
109. Carmeli E, Kessel S, Coleman R Ayalon M. Effects of a treadmill walking program on
muscle strength and balance in elderly people with down syndrome. J Gerontol Med Sci.
2002;57A:M106-M110.
110. Geiger R, Allen J, O'Keefe J Hicks R. Balance and Mobility Following Stroke: Effects
of Physical Therapy Interventions With and Without Biofeedback/Forceplate Training.
Phys Ther. 2001;81, Number 4:995-1005.
111. Sharp SBrouwer B. Isokinetic strength training of the hemiparetic knee: effects on
function and spasticity. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1997;78:1231-1236.
112. Walker C, Brouwer B Culham E. Use of Visual Feedback in Retraining Balance
Following Acute Stroke. Phys Ther. 2000;80:886-895.
113. Brown K, Whitney S, Wrisley D Furman J. Physical therapy outcomes for persons with
bilaterial vestibular loss. Laryngoscope. 2001;111:1812-1817.
114. Papaioannou A, Adachi J, Winegard K, et al. Efficacy of home-based exercise for
improving quality of life among elderly women with symptomatic osteoporosis-related
vertebral fractures. Osteoporos Int. 2003;14:677-682.
115. Kumar M, Jacquot F Hall H. Long-term follow-up of functional outcomes and
radiographic changes at adjacent levels following lumbar spine fusion for degenerative
disc disease. Eur Sping J. 2001;10:309-313.
116. Malone M, Hill A Smith G. Three-month follow up of patients discharged from a
geriatric day hospital. Age Ageing. 2002;31:471-475.
117. Salbach N, Mayo N, Higgins J, et al. Responsiveness and predictaibility of gait speed and
other disability measures in acute stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2001;82:1204-1212.
118. Carter V. Hemiparetic optimal practice and evaluation (H.O.P.E.) for the stroke survivor
with very low hand function. Top Stroke Rehabil. 2008;15:586-592.
119. Marston A. Can the type of walking stick issued effect mobility, confidence or fear of
falling? J Int Ther Rehabil. 2007;14:229-234.
120. Dam T, von Muhlen D Barrett-Connor E. Sex-specific association of serum vitamin D
levels with physical function in older adults. Osteoporos Int. 2009;20:751-760.
121. Widener G, Allen D Gibson-Horn C. Balance-based torso-weighting may enhance
balance in persons with multiple sclerosis: preliminary evidence. Arch Phys Med Rehabil.
2009;90:602-609.
122. Wing K, Lynskey J Bosch P. Whole-body intensive rehabilitation stroke is feasible and
effective in chronic stroke survivors: A retrospective data analysis. Top Stroke Rehabil.
2008;15:247-255.
123. Pavlik A. The effect of long-term ankle-foot orthosis use on gait in the poststroke
population. J Prosthet Orthot. 2008;20:49-52.
Test and Measures: Adult, 2012 TUG Page 27 Do not copy without permission of Teresa Steffen
124. Arai T, Obuchi S, Inaba Y, Shiba Y Satake K. The relationship between physical
condition and change in balance functions on exercise intervention and 12-month follow-
up in Japanese community-dwelling older people. Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2009;48:61-66.
125. Johannesson A, Larsson G, Oberg T Atroshi I. Comparison of vacuum-formed removable
rigid dressing with conventional rigid dressing after transtibial amputation. Acta
Orthopaedica. 2008;79:361-369.
126. Staalesen Strumse Y, Nordvag B, Stanghelle J, et al. The efficacy of rehabilitation for
patients with rheumatoid arthritis: comparison between a 4-week rehabilitation
programme in a warm and cold climate. Scand J Rheumatol. 2009;38:28-37.
127. Chang A, Seale H, Walsh J Brauer S. Static balance is affected following an exercise task
in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. J Cardiopulm Rehabil Prev. 2008;28:142-145.
128. Batson GBarker S. Feasibility of group delivery of the alexander technique on balance in
the community-dwelling elderly: preliminary findings. Adaptation Aging. 2008;32:103-
119.
129. Sackley C, Patel S Wright C. Rehabilitation in care homes (RICH-T): a cluster
randomized controlled trial. Physiother Res Int. 2007;12:205.
130. Verhaar HJJ, Samson MM, Jansen PAF, et al. Muscle strength, functional mobility and
vitamin D in older women. Aging Clin. Exp. Res. 2000;12:455-460.
131. Jansen P, Herings R, Samson M, et al. Quick titration of pergolide in cotreatment with
domperidone is safe and effective. Clin. Neuropharmacol. 2001;24:177-180.
132. Newton R. Balance screening of an inner city older adult population. Arch Phys Med
Rehabil. 1997;78:587-591.
133. Hall SE, Williams JA, Senior JA, Goldswain PRT Criddle RA. Hip fracture outcomes:
quality of life and functional status in older adults living in the community. Aust NZJ
Med. 2000;30:327-332.
134. Kennedy D, Stratford P, Pagura S, Walsh M Woodhause L. Comparison of gendera and
group differences in self-report and physical performance measures in total hip and knee
arthroplasty candidates. J Arthroplasty. 2002;17:70-77.
135. Reardon K, Galea M, Dennett X, Choong P Byrne E. Quadriceps muscle wasting persists
5 months after total hip arthorplasty for osteoarthritis of the hip: a pilot study. Intern Med
J. 2001;31:7-14.
136. Aslan U, Cavlak U, Yagci N Akdag B. Balance performance, aging and falling: a
comparative study based on Turkish sample. Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2008;46:283-292.
137. van Iersel M, Munneke M, Esselink R, Benraad C Olde Rikkert M. Gait velocity and the
Timed-Up-and Go test were sensitive to changes in mobility in frail elderly. J Clin
Epidemiol. 2008;61:186-191.
138. Medley AThompson M. The effect of assistive devices on the performance of community
dwelling elderly on the timed up and go test. Issues Aging. 1997;20:3-6.
139. Nikolaus T, Bach M, Oster P Schlierf G. Prospective value of self-report and
performance-based tests of funtional status for 18-month outcomes in elderly patients.
Aging Clin. Exp. Res. 1996;8:271-275.
140. Thompson M Medley A. Performance of individuals with Parkinson's disease on the
Timed up & go. Neurol Rep. 1998;22:16-21.
141. Martinez-Martin P, Urra DG, Del Ser Zuijano T, et al. A new clinical tool for gait
evaluation in Parkinson' disease. Clin Neuropharmacol. 1997;20:183-194.
Test and Measures: Adult, 2012 TUG Page 28 Do not copy without permission of Teresa Steffen
142. Smith B, Segal R Wolf S. Long latency ankle responses to dynamic perturbation in older
fallers and non-fallers. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1996;44:1447-1454.
143. Vereeck L, Wuyts F, Truijen S Van de Heyning P. Clinical assessment of balance:
normative data, and gender and age effects. Int J Audiol. 2008;47:67-75.
144. Steffen T, Hacker T Mollinger L. Age-and gender-related test performance in
community-dwelling elderly people: Six-Minute Walk Test, Berg Balance Scale, Timed
Up & Go Test, and Gait Speeds. Phys Ther. 2002;82:128-137.
145. Lusardi M, Pellechia G Schulman M. Functional performance in community living older
adults. J Geriatr Phys Ther. 2003;26:14-22.