Free
Poster Session
Issue Date: July 2015
Published Online: July 01, 2015
Updated: April 30, 2020
Relationships Between Mobility Test Components and Activity Performance of Older Adults
Author Affiliations
  • University of Tennessee
Article Information
Geriatrics/Productive Aging / Assessment/Measurement
Poster Session   |   July 01, 2015
Relationships Between Mobility Test Components and Activity Performance of Older Adults
American Journal of Occupational Therapy, July 2015, Vol. 69, 6911500192. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.2015.69S1-PO6094
American Journal of Occupational Therapy, July 2015, Vol. 69, 6911500192. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.2015.69S1-PO6094
Abstract

Date Presented 4/18/2015

The Timed Up and Go Components (TUGc) test may accurately illustrate activities of daily living (ADLs) participation and restriction in active community-dwelling older adults. Three mobility components were moderately correlated to three different ADLs. Age does not appear to be a factor. Testing mobility components may enhance practice.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to relate older adults’ mobility components to their activity level and activity restriction. The research question we attempted to answer was: Does the Timed Up and Go Components (TUGc) test accurately illustrate current activity level and activity restriction in active community-dwelling older adults?
RATIONALE/BACKGROUND: The older adult population is growing and will have a great impact on society and future occupational therapy practice. In all activities of daily living (ADL) occupations, some amount of movement or mobility is needed. As occupational therapists, one of our founding principles is that occupation is central to health and quality of life. The Timed Up and Go (TUG) test is a recognized mobility assessment with strong falls prediction that takes less than 2 min to administer. However, as a single-score test, the TUG does not differentiate between components of mobility that may be used to focus treatment for ADL concerns. A mobility test under development, the TUGc test uses the same TUG protocol but measures each component segment. Determining the relationships between the five components of mobility in the TUGc test may enhance occupational therapy practice without increasing assessment time or costs.
METHOD: In this nonrandomized, cohort/descriptive correlational study, 79 active community-dwelling older adults (aged 65 to 80 yr) were recruited from churches, a continuum of care retirement community, and a residential neighborhood to participate. The Survey of Activities and Fear of Falling in the Elderly (SAFE) was used to assess activity level and activity restriction, and the TUGc test was used to assess mobility.
RESULTS: Three of the TUGc test’s five components had moderate correlations to three different SAFE activities. These relationships were not seen when only TUG total times were used. Variance in TUGc test component times and total TUG times were low in this active older adult subject group.
CONCLUSION: In an active older adult population aged 80 yr or younger, age does not appear to be a major factor for activity restriction. Testing mobility components adds specificity to occupational therapy mobility testing and may enhance practice. Because variance between subjects was low, greater assessment and treatment benefit may be seen with older adults who have known mobility deficits and/or adults aged more than 80 yr.
References
Faulkner, L., Clausel, A., Cross, K., Stovall, C., & Vance, T. (2009). The Timed Up and Go Components (TUGc) test. Memphis, TN: University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Occupational Therapy Department.
Lachman, M. E., Howland, J., Tennstedt, S., Jette, A., Assmann, S., & Peterson, E. W. (1998). Fear of falling and activity restriction: The Survey of Activities and Fear of Falling in the Elderly (SAFE). The Journals of Gerontology, Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 53, 43–50.
Podsiadlo, D., & Richardson, S. (1991). The Timed “Up & Go”: A test of basic functional mobility for frail elderly patients. Journal of American Geriatrics Society, 39, 142–148. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-5415.1991.tb01616.x