Clinical Measurement of Sit-to-Stand Performance in People With Balance Disorders: Validity of Data for the Five-Times-Sit-to-Stand Test

TLDR

People with balance disorders struggle with transitional movements such as sit‑to‑stand. This study aimed to evaluate the concurrent and discriminative validity of the Five‑Times‑Sit‑to‑Stand Test (FTSST). Eighty‑four subjects without balance disorders and ninety‑three with balance disorders performed five rapid sit‑to‑stand trials from a 43‑cm chair while their FTSST times were compared to ABC and DGI scores. The FTSST identified 65% of balance‑disordered subjects (81% in those under 60), whereas ABC and DGI identified 80% and 78% respectively, indicating that while the FTSST has valid discriminative properties, ABC and DGI outperform it.

Abstract

People with balance disorders are characterized as having difficulty with transitional movements, such as the sit-to-stand movement. A valid and feasible tool is needed to help clinicians quantify the ability of people with balance disorders to perform transitional movements. The purpose of this study was to describe the concurrent and discriminative validity of data obtained with the Five-Times-Sit-to-Stand Test (FTSST). The FTSST was compared with the Activities-specific Balance Confidence Scale (ABC) and the Dynamic Gait Index (DGI).Eighty-one subjects without balance disorders and 93 subjects with balance disorders were recruited for the study. Each subject was asked to stand from a 43-cm-high chair 5 times as quickly as possible. The ABC and DGI scores were recorded.Subjects with balance disorders performed the FTSST more slowly than subjects without balance disorders. Discriminant analysis demonstrated that the FTSST correctly identified 65% of subjects with balance dysfunction, the ABC identified 80%, and the DGI identified 78%. The ability of the FTSST to identify subjects with balance dysfunction was better for subjects younger than 60 years of age (81%).The FTSST displays discriminative and concurrent validity properties that make this test potentially useful in clinical decision making, although overall the ABC and the DGI are better than the FTSST at discriminating between subjects with and subjects without balance disorders.