Clinical Utility of the 2-Minute Walk Test for Older Adults Living in Long-Term Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study's purposes were to examine the measurement properties of the 2-minute walk test (2MWT), to illustrate the use of reliability coefficients in clinical practice, and to estimate sample size for a subsequent validity study. METHOD: Sixteen residents of long-term care (LTC; mean age = 87 years) completed two 2MWTs with Rater A and two 2MWTs with Rater B on test days 1 and 2, approximately 1 week apart. On a third test day, subjects completed one trial of the Berg Balance Scale (BBS), timed up-and-go (TUG) test, and 6-minute walk test (6MWT) with Rater A. On 2 other test days, approximately 1 week apart, Rater A administered the 2MWT to five older adults living in a retirement facility. Absolute and relative reliability and concurrent and known-groups validity coefficients were calculated. RESULTS: No main effect for rater, trial, or occasion was found. Test-retest reliability estimates of 0.94 and 0.95 were obtained. The 2MWT demonstrated concurrent validity (r > or = 0.84) with the BBS, TUG, and 6MWT. Comparison of distance walked by LTC and retirement residents showed a difference of 72.9 m (95% CI: 44.2, 101.6). The results suggest that 90% of truly stable older adults will display random fluctuations in 2MWT performance within a boundary of 15 m. CONCLUSION: The 2MWT had sound measurement properties in this sample of LTC residents. Based on our results, 24 subjects would be required for a subsequent hypothesis-testing validity study.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".