Minimal Detectable Change in Dual-Task Cost for Older Adults With and Without Cognitive Impairment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Dual-task (DT) training has become a common intervention for older adults with balance and mobility limitations. Minimal detectable change (MDC) of an outcome measure is used to distinguish true change from measurement error. Few studies reporting on reliability of DT outcomes have reported MDCs. In addition, there has been limited methodological DT research on persons with cognitive impairment (CI), who have relatively more difficulty with DTs than persons without CI. The purpose of this study was to describe test-retest reliability and MDC for dual-task cost (DTC) in older adults with and without CI and for DTs of varying difficulty. METHODS: Fifty participants 65 years and older attended 2 test sessions within 7 to 19 days. Participants were in a high cognitive group (n = 27) with a Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) score of 26 or more, or a low cognitive group (n = 23) with a MoCA score of less than 26. During both sessions, we used a pressure-sensing walkway to collect gait data from participants. We calculated motor DTC (the percent decline in motor performance under DT relative to single-task conditions) for 4 DTs: the Timed Up and Go (TUG) while counting forward by ones (TUG1) and counting backward by threes (TUG3); and self-selected walking speed (SSWS) with the same secondary tasks (SSWS1 and SSWS3). Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and MDCs were calculated for DTC for the time to complete the TUG and spatiotemporal gait variables during SSWS. A 3-way analysis of variance was used to compare differences in mean DTC between groups, tasks, and sessions. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: ICCs varied across groups and tasks, ranging from 0.02 to 0.76. MDCs were larger for individuals with low cognition and for DTs involving counting backward by threes. For example, the largest MDC was 503.1% for stride width during SSWS3 for individuals with low cognition, and the smallest MDC was 5.6% for cadence during SSWS1 for individuals with high cognition. Individuals with low cognition demonstrated greater DTC than individuals with high cognition. SSWS3 and TUG3 resulted in greater DTC than SSWS1 and TUG1. There were no differences in DTC between sessions for any variable. CONCLUSIONS: Our study provides MDCs for DTC that physical therapists may use to assess change in older adults who engage in DT training. Persons with low cognition who are receiving DT training must exhibit greater change in DTC before one can be confident the change is real. Also, greater change must be observed for more challenging DTs. Thus, cognitive level and task difficulty should be considered when measuring change with DT training.
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 | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".