SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

A study of the reliability and validity of the Six-Spot Step Test Cognitive in ambulatory persons with Parkinson's disease.

Parkinsonism Relat Disord · 2023-04-24

DOI: 10.1016/j.parkreldis.2023.105412PMID: 37119663

Check source for accessJournal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by

IntroductionAlthough dual-task walking deficits challenge ambulatory function in persons with Parkinson's disease (PwPD), ambulation measures that incorporate cognitive dual-task loads seem scarce. In its construct and instruction, the Six-Spot Step Test Cognitive (SSSTcog) ensures an equal focus on cognitive and motor tasks. The present study investigated the construct validity and test-retest reliability of the SSSTcog in PwPD.MethodsSeventy-eight PwPD were recruited from outpatient clinics. The SSSTcog was completed twice within the same day and again three to seven days later. In addition, the cognitive Timed "Up and Go" test (TUGcog) and the Mini-BESTest were also conducted on the last day. Reliability and validity were estimated using Bland-Altman statistics, the minimal difference (MD), Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC), and Spearman's rank correlation coefficient (ρ).ResultsThe SSSTcog was found reliable (ICC: 0.84-0.89; MD: 23.7%-30.2%) and showed moderate construct validity to the TUGcog (ρ = 0.62, p ConclusionsIn PwPD, the SSSTcog showed promising construct validity, acceptable to excellent reliability, making it a valid measure of functional mobility, including cognitive dual-tasking. Higher dual-task cost for the SSSTcog indicated actual cognitive-motor interference while performing the test.

Scientific assessment

01

Research question

Assess the question within the original study’s scope.

02

Methods & sample

Check the source article for study design and sample details.

03

Key findings

An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.

04

Limitations

Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.

Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.