A Smartphone-Based Timed Up and Go Test Self-Assessment for Older Adults: Validity and Reliability Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The Timed Up and Go test (TUG) is recommended as an evidence-based tool for measuring physical capacity. Instrumented TUG (iTUG) approaches expand classical supervised clinical applications offering the potential of self-assessment for older adults. Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the concurrent validity and test-retest reliability of a smartphone-based TUG self-assessment "up&go app." Methods: A total of 52 community-dwelling older adults (>67 years old) were recruited. A validated and medically certified system attached with a belt at the lower back was used as a reference system to validate the "up&go app" algorithm. The participants repeated the TUG 5 times wearing, a smartphone with the "up&go app" in their front trouser pocket and an inertial sensor to test the concurrent validity. A subsample of 37 participants repeated the "up&go app" measurement 2 weeks later to examine the test-retest reliability. Results: The correlation between the "up&go app" and the reference measurement was r=0.99 for the total test duration and r=0.97 for the 5 single repetitions. Agreement between the 5 repetitions was intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC)=0.9 (0.84-0.94). Leaving out the first repetition, the agreement was ICC=0.95 (0.92-0.97). Test-retest agreement had an ICC=0.79 (0.53-0.9). Conclusions: The duration of 5 repetitions of the TUG test, measured with the pocket-worn "up&go app," was very consistent with the results of a lower-back sensor system, indicating excellent concurrent validity. Participants walked slower in the first round than in the other 4 repetitions within a test run. Test-retest reliability was also excellent. The "up&go app" provides a useful smartphone-based approach to measure 5 repetitions of the TUG. The app could be used by older adults as a self-screening and monitoring tool of physical capacity at home and thereby help to early identify functional limitations and take interventions when necessary.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".