Thirty second chair stand test: Test–retest reliability, agreement and minimum detectable change in people with early‐stage knee osteoarthritis

Abstract

Background and Purpose: To determine intra-session test-retest reliability, agreement and minimum detectable change (MDC) of the 30 CST across three tests in people with knee osteoarthritis (OA). Methods:A test-retest reliability study was performed with 93 people with mild radiological knee OA. Participants were asked to complete three attempts of the 30 CST 1-2 min apart according to a standardised protocol. Participants completed three attempts on two occasions: baseline and 6 months later. Change between tests within each session was assessed with ANOVA's and post-hoc t-tests. Reliability was assessed with intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC [2,1] ). Measurement error was expressed as MDC for an individual (MDC ind ) and a group (MDC group ).Floor effects were considered present if more than 15% of participants scored zero for a test.Results: Scores increased by 0.5 and 0.8 stands between the first and second test (p < 0.05) at the baseline and 6-month assessments respectively, and then stabilised between the second the third tests at the baseline assessment (p > 0.05) or decreased (0.3 stands) at the 6-month assessment (p < 0.05). Scores demonstrated excellent reliability (ICCs >0.9). MDC ind was approximately 2.5 stands and MDC group was 0.3-0.4 stands. No floor effects were apparent.Discussion: The 30CST demonstrated a practice effect between the first and second tests, which was no longer apparent by the third test. Despite this, scores demonstrated excellent intra-session reliability. MDC estimates provide clinicians and researchers with the smallest change that can be detected by the instrument beyond measurement error for individuals and groups in community-dwelling adults with knee OA.

Feasibility, Reliability, and Safety of Remote Five Times Sit to Stand Test in Patients with Gastrointestinal Cancer

“…Early evidence has supported the validity and reliability of a variety of physical assessments remotely performed in other populations [13,14,[30][31][32][33]. In our study, the remote 5STS test showed excellent reliability (ICC = 0.957) and no significant systematic errors were observed.…”

“…The reliability (ICC) in other populations for the remote 5STS was also supportive, including among older veterans (remote assessments performed by two different assessors, ICC = 0.999) [14] and older adults (face-to-face vs. remote assessments, ICC = 0.960) [13]. The 30 s STS, is a variation of the 5STS test, and has also demonstrated similar reliability outcomes in knee osteoarthritis (ICC = 0.920) [30], cancer survivors and carers (ICC = 0.860) [32], and multiple sclerosis (ICC = 0.974) [31]. The SEM and MDC values of the 5STS test were 0.176 and 0.488 s, respectively.…”

Genicular artery embolization for early-stage knee osteoarthritis: results from a triple-blind single-centre randomized controlled trial

“…The primary outcome was knee pain at 12 months according to the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) Pain scale. 9 Secondary outcomes were: 1) self-reported physical function (KOOS Function in Daily Living scale and KOOS Function in Sport and Recreation scale); 9 2) self-reported quality of life (KOOS Quality of Life scale 9 and EuroQol five-dimension five-level questionnaire); 10 3) self-reported knee joint stiffness (KOOS Symptoms scale); 9 4) self-reported global change in knee pain (7-point Likert scale); 7 5) six-minute walk test performance (6MWT); 11 6) 30-second chair stand test performance (30CST); 12 7) mental health (Hospital Anxiety Depression Scale (HADS)); 13 8) adverse events (Society of Interventional Radiology (SIR) Standards of Practice Committee adverse event classification); 14 and 9) change in pharmacotherapy to treat knee pain.…”

How does joint impairment affect the functional capacity of the lower limb in early haemophilia‐related arthropathy?

“…However, it is important to note that these tests may not evaluate a single capability, and the interpretation may consider an overlap between muscle power and endurance, particularly between 30‐STS and 60‐STS. These tests have been reported that have good reliability 22–24 . The minimal detectable difference for TUG has been determined in 2.27 s 22 .…”

“…The minimal detectable difference for TUG has been determined in 2.27 s 22 . The minimal detectable difference of 30‐STS was established in one repetition, 23,24 and for 60‐STS in 3 repetitions 25 . The same physiotherapist (CD) performed the tests.…”