Measurement properties of the usual and fast gait speed tests in community-dwelling older adults: a COSMIN-based systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The gait speed test is one of the most widely used mobility assessments for older adults. We conducted a systematic review to evaluate and compare the measurement properties of the usual and fast gait speed tests in community-dwelling older adults. METHODS: Three databases were searched: MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL. Peer-reviewed articles evaluating the gait speed test's measurement properties or interpretability in community-dwelling older adults were included. The Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments guidelines were followed for data synthesis and quality assessment. RESULTS: Ninety-five articles met our inclusion criteria, with 79 evaluating a measurement property and 16 reporting on interpretability. There was sufficient reliability for both tests, with intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) generally ranging from 0.72 to 0.98, but overall quality of evidence was low. For convergent/discriminant validity, an overall sufficient rating with moderate quality of evidence was found for both tests. Concurrent validity of the usual gait speed test was sufficient (ICCs = 0.79-0.93 with longer distances) with moderate quality of evidence; however, there were insufficient results for the fast gait speed test (e.g. low agreement with longer distances) supported by high-quality studies. Responsiveness was only evaluated in three articles, with low quality of evidence. CONCLUSION: Findings from this review demonstrated evidence in support of the reliability and validity of the usual and fast gait speed tests in community-dwelling older adults. However, future validation studies should employ rigorous methodology and evaluate the tests' responsiveness.
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 | 0.023 | 0.124 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".