Concurrent Validity of GAITRite and the 10-m Walk Test to Measure Gait Speed in Adults with Chronic Ankle Instability

Abstract

Since there are many different assessments related to gait speed, it is important to determine the concurrent validity of each measure so that they can be used interchangeably. Our study aimed to investigate the concurrent validity of gait speed measured by the 10 m walk test (10 MWT) and the gold standard gait analysis system, the GAITRite system, for people with chronic ankle instability (CAI). For 16 people with CAI, 4 evaluations of the 10 MWT and 4 evaluations of the GAITRite system were performed (a comfortable gait speed for 2 evaluations; a maximal gait speed for 2 evaluations). We used intraclass correlations [ICC (2,1), absolute agreement] and Bland–Altman plots to analyze the relationship between the gait speed of the two measures. The absolute agreement between the 10 MWT and the GAITRite system is at the comfortable gait speed [ICC = 0.66; p < 0.001)], and the maximal gait speed [ICC = 0.68; p < 0.001)] showed fair to good agreement. Both gait speeds had a proportional bias; the limit of agreement (LOA) was large (0.50 at the comfortable gait speed and 0.60 at the maximal gait speed). Regression-based Bland–Altman plots were created for the comfortable gait speed (R2 = 0.54, p < 0.001) and the maximal gait speed (R2 = 0.78, p < 0.001). The regression-based LOA ranged from 0.45 to 0.66 m/s for the comfortable gait speed and 1.09 to 1.37 m/s for the maximal gait speed. Our study suggests that it is undesirable to mix the 10 MWT and the GAITRite system gait speed measurements in people with CAI. Each measure should not be recorded by the same evaluation tool and referenced to normative data.

Reference Values for Habitual and Fast Gait Speed in Singapore Adults Aged 21 to 80

“…Our results verified that this simple, low-cost setup provides an excellent alternative in community settings in which sophisticated equipment, such as the GAITRite walkway, may not be available due to limitation of resources. Additionally, an earlier study reported that the manual stopwatch–footfall count method is comparable to a smart system [ 32 ], and our results are well aligned with earlier studies [ 32 , 33 ].…”