As part of the 'timed up and go' test participants will have a marker attached to their centre of mass in order to collect data on factors such as jerk and postural sway. The centre of mass is described as a balance point of an object (Gambino et al, 2006). However before we can do this we need to determine where abouts on the body the centre of mass will be. According to Gambino et al (2006) a person's centre of mass is just below the belly button, which is nearly the geometric centre of a person. In a trial run of our experiment we were placing the marker slightly above the participant's belly button so it is possible that the data we collected maybe be inaccurate as this could have been the wrong positioning for their centre of mass.
Gambino et al (2006) concluded that a female's centre of mass is slightly lower than a males centre of mass. Unfortunately we would not be able to perform the test they did to collect these results as we are working with the frail elderly. The test they completed involved lying on beams in order to record the weight and height of each participant. There is the possibility of an injury and this involves the use of a large amount of equipment.
According to McGinnis (2005) a person's centre of mass is estimated at between 55 and 57% of their height in the anatomical position. Similarly, McGinnis (2005) identifies that a females centre of mass will be slightly lower than a males centre of mass as a result of larger pelvic girdles and narrower shoulders. This way of calculating the centre of mass would be easier to carry out as it requires little of the participants and only a small amount of equipment. If the measurements are not carried out then at least we now have a better understanding of where the centre of mass is on the human body.
References
Gambino,S, Mirochnik, M and Schechter S. (2006) The Physics Factbook.
McGinnis, P.M. (2005) Biomechanics of sport and exercise. Human Kinetics. pp 133.
Showing posts with label Jamie Leigh Nightingale. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jamie Leigh Nightingale. Show all posts
Thursday, 9 February 2012
Thursday, 20 October 2011
The ‘Timed Get-Up-And-Go’ test revisited: Measurement of the component tasks. Wall, J. Bell, C. Campbell, S and Davis, J.
The aim of the study was to compare the different results between the ‘Timed Get-Up-And-Go’ (TGUG) test and the ‘Expanded Timed Get-Up-And-Go’ (ETGUG) test on 3 groups. The TGUG only measures the time of the movement as a whole whereas the ETGUG could measure the component tasks of the test.
3 groups of 10 subjects participated on the study. Group 1 classified as the young control group aged between 19 and 29 years with a mean age of 25.5. Group 2 were classified as the elderly control group who were aged 65 and over with a mean age score of 72.7 years. Group 3 were classified as the at risk elderly group who were aged over 65 and had a mean age of 75.8 years. All of these subjects were receiving physical therapy, had a history of falls in the past two years or had been treated for gait pathologies or balance disorders.
The subjects all had to complete the ‘Timed Get-Up-And-Go’ test first. This involved standing up from a chair (seat height 46cm) and walking 3 meters at a normal pace, turning around walking back and returning to the seated position. The second test they all completed was the ‘Expanded Timed Get-Up-And-Go’ test. This involved them walking 10 meters so that component tasks could be timed using a multimemory stopwatch. The stopwatch was pressed at the following events: a) standing upright b) as the subject passed the 2m mark c) as the subject passed the 8m mark d) as the subject passes the 8m mark returning and e) as the subject passed the 2m mark returning.
The results displayed no significant differences in the times from the TGUG between the young control group and elderly control group. The young control group’s mean time was 7.36s. The mean time for the elderly control group was 8.74s and the at risk elderly group had a mean time of 18.14s to complete the task. Similar results were found for the ETGUG test. The mean time for the young control group was 15.36s, the elderly control group was 19.095s and the at risk elderly group was 34.52s. A significant difference was found between the young and at risk group and the elderly and the at risk group for every component task of the test. Both control groups were found to be significantly faster at each stage than the at risk group.
All the young and elderly control participants completed the TGUG test in less than 10 seconds which is consistent with previous findings therefore showing they are freely independent in physical mobility. In both of the tests it was found the elderly group and the at risk elderly group had difficulty standing up from the chair. Therefore it has been suggested that only this measure could be used in future research to predict a patient’s risk of falling. Additional research is needed to determine correlations between the increased time for specific component tasks and a decreased functional mobility.
The aim of the study was to compare the different results between the ‘Timed Get-Up-And-Go’ (TGUG) test and the ‘Expanded Timed Get-Up-And-Go’ (ETGUG) test on 3 groups. The TGUG only measures the time of the movement as a whole whereas the ETGUG could measure the component tasks of the test.
3 groups of 10 subjects participated on the study. Group 1 classified as the young control group aged between 19 and 29 years with a mean age of 25.5. Group 2 were classified as the elderly control group who were aged 65 and over with a mean age score of 72.7 years. Group 3 were classified as the at risk elderly group who were aged over 65 and had a mean age of 75.8 years. All of these subjects were receiving physical therapy, had a history of falls in the past two years or had been treated for gait pathologies or balance disorders.
The subjects all had to complete the ‘Timed Get-Up-And-Go’ test first. This involved standing up from a chair (seat height 46cm) and walking 3 meters at a normal pace, turning around walking back and returning to the seated position. The second test they all completed was the ‘Expanded Timed Get-Up-And-Go’ test. This involved them walking 10 meters so that component tasks could be timed using a multimemory stopwatch. The stopwatch was pressed at the following events: a) standing upright b) as the subject passed the 2m mark c) as the subject passed the 8m mark d) as the subject passes the 8m mark returning and e) as the subject passed the 2m mark returning.
The results displayed no significant differences in the times from the TGUG between the young control group and elderly control group. The young control group’s mean time was 7.36s. The mean time for the elderly control group was 8.74s and the at risk elderly group had a mean time of 18.14s to complete the task. Similar results were found for the ETGUG test. The mean time for the young control group was 15.36s, the elderly control group was 19.095s and the at risk elderly group was 34.52s. A significant difference was found between the young and at risk group and the elderly and the at risk group for every component task of the test. Both control groups were found to be significantly faster at each stage than the at risk group.
All the young and elderly control participants completed the TGUG test in less than 10 seconds which is consistent with previous findings therefore showing they are freely independent in physical mobility. In both of the tests it was found the elderly group and the at risk elderly group had difficulty standing up from the chair. Therefore it has been suggested that only this measure could be used in future research to predict a patient’s risk of falling. Additional research is needed to determine correlations between the increased time for specific component tasks and a decreased functional mobility.
Thursday, 13 October 2011
The Timed “Up and Go” : A Test of Basic Functional Mobility for Frail Elderly Persons. Podsiadlo. D & Richardson. S.
The aim of the study was to assess the functional capacity in the elderly using a modified timed version of a previous test proposed by Mathias et al. The validity and the reliability of such tests has been questioned therefore a new scoring system was implemented as a result of the imprecise scoring systems used previously.
60 patients from a Geriatric Hospital in Montreal took part in the study, 23 male and 37 female, with a mean age of 79.5 years. Their instructions were to stand up from a seated position in an armchair (approximate seat height of 46cm) walk a distance of 3 meters, turn around and walk back to the chair and return to the seated position. 10 active volunteers over 70 years old were also tested and these were used as control subjects. All the other patients had been diagnosed with major medical problems such as Parkinson’s disease and osteoarthritis.
The results displayed a wide range of times amongst the 60 patients with major medical diagnoses. However, the 10 active elderly volunteers all managed to complete the timed “up and go” in 10 seconds or less. The times between 57 of the patients ranged from 10 seconds to 240 seconds. There were 3 patients who were unable to complete the task and a further 7 who started but could not finish the test. No relationship was found between the score from the timed “up and go” test and their medical diagnosis. The scores were then divided into less than 10 seconds, 20 – 29 seconds and over 30 seconds as in indication of how independent in basic transfers they were.
The timed “up and go” test is very simple in that it is easy to administer as it requires no special equipment or training. The test is reliable as the results showed little variance in their times scores either between raters or over time. However further investigation is needed with regards to the group described as a ‘grey zone’. The scores in the 20-29 seconds category vary widely, therefore making it difficult to clarify their balance, gait speed and functional capacity. The test is valid as it measures everyday life activities. It is also a good screening tool as it may reveal no improvement in the time scores, displaying a deterioration in functional mobility that a neuromuscular examination may be unable to tell us.
60 patients from a Geriatric Hospital in Montreal took part in the study, 23 male and 37 female, with a mean age of 79.5 years. Their instructions were to stand up from a seated position in an armchair (approximate seat height of 46cm) walk a distance of 3 meters, turn around and walk back to the chair and return to the seated position. 10 active volunteers over 70 years old were also tested and these were used as control subjects. All the other patients had been diagnosed with major medical problems such as Parkinson’s disease and osteoarthritis.
The results displayed a wide range of times amongst the 60 patients with major medical diagnoses. However, the 10 active elderly volunteers all managed to complete the timed “up and go” in 10 seconds or less. The times between 57 of the patients ranged from 10 seconds to 240 seconds. There were 3 patients who were unable to complete the task and a further 7 who started but could not finish the test. No relationship was found between the score from the timed “up and go” test and their medical diagnosis. The scores were then divided into less than 10 seconds, 20 – 29 seconds and over 30 seconds as in indication of how independent in basic transfers they were.
The timed “up and go” test is very simple in that it is easy to administer as it requires no special equipment or training. The test is reliable as the results showed little variance in their times scores either between raters or over time. However further investigation is needed with regards to the group described as a ‘grey zone’. The scores in the 20-29 seconds category vary widely, therefore making it difficult to clarify their balance, gait speed and functional capacity. The test is valid as it measures everyday life activities. It is also a good screening tool as it may reveal no improvement in the time scores, displaying a deterioration in functional mobility that a neuromuscular examination may be unable to tell us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)