Clinimetric properties of the performance-oriented mobility assessment.

The Performance-Oriented Mobility Assessment (POMA) scale, developed by Tinetti and first published in 1986, (1) is a widely used tool for assessing mobility and fall risk in older people. It is easily applied in clinical settings; other than a standard chair and a stopwatch, no further equipment is required, and only little experience is needed to master its use. (1) After a few practice sessions, the observer can complete the assessment in less than 15 minutes. (2)

Several adapted versions of the POMA have been published, but in this article, only the original 28-point version is considered, as it is the most commonly used version. (3) The total POMA scale (POMA-T) consists of a balance scale (POMA-B) and a gait scale (POMA-G). The POMA-B carries the subject through positions and changes in position, reflecting stability tasks that are related to daily activities. In the POMA-G, several qualitative aspects of the locomotion pattern are examined. Each item is scored on a 2- or 3-point scale, resulting in a maximum score of 28 on the POMA-T and maximum scores of 16 and 12 on the POMA-B and the POMA-G, respectively. Originally, the POMA-T was developed to predict falls in an institutionalized population. (3) Later, the scale also was used in various clinical contexts as a measure of mobility impairment (4-6) and to study the effects of interventions. (7-13)

A prerequisite for using a clinical measurement tool is that its clinimetric properties, including validity, reliability, and responsiveness, are satisfactory. Validity indicates whether the instrument does indeed measure what it is intended to measure. Concurrent validity refers to the relationship between scores on the scale in question and scores on other scales intended to measure the same construct. Predictive validity refers to the degree to which the scores predict an external criterion. Reliability refers to the extent to which the measurements are objective (interrater reliability) and stable over time (test-retest reliability). Absolute reliability is the degree to which repeated measurements vary for subjects, with the changes being expressed in the units of measurement of the instrument. Relative reliability is the degree to which subjects maintain their position in a sample with repeated measurements, usually assessed with some type of correlation coefficient. (14) Responsiveness is defined as the ability of an instrument to accurately detect change when it has occurred. (15,16)

Only limited clinimetric data on the original POMA have been published. With regard to test-retest reliability of POMA-T scores, intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) of .88 (for 40 residents of skilled nursing homes) (17) and .97 (for 8 community-dwelling older people) (4) have been reported. The concurrent validity of POMA-T scores was investigated in a cross-sectional study (6) of 167 older people with mild balance impairments. Spearman correlations (R) of POMA-T scores with the results of several balance-related tests were calculated; these measures included maximum step length (R=.75), tandem stance time (R=.69), stance time on one foot (R=.74), tandem walk time (R=-.62), Timed "Up & Go" Test (TUG) (R=-.65), and 6-Minute Walk Test (R=.62). For a group of 59 community-dwelling older people, a Spearman correlation of .79 between POMA-T scores and gait impairment scores based on a neurologic examination was found. (5)

With regard to the POMA-B, a test-retest reliability value (ICC) of .93 was reported for a group of 14 residential care facility residents. (7) Interrater reliability values in that study, expressed as Pearson correlation coefficients (r), varied from .76 to .90. For a group of 40 residents of skilled nursing homes, the ICC indicating interrater reliability was .75. (17) In one study focusing on the interrater reliability of scores on the 8 individual items of the POMA-B, kappa coefficients ranging from .40 to 1.00 were reported across many raters with various levels of experience for 29 hospital inpatients and nursing home residents. (18) The predictive validity of scores on the POMA-B for falls was investigated by Verghese et al (19) with a group of 60 community-dwelling older people; with a cutoff value set at a score of 10 points, the sensitivity was 61.5% and the specificity was 69.5%.

With regard to the POMA-G, an interrater reliability value (ICC) of .83 was reported for a group of 40 residents of skilled nursing homes. (17) The concurrent validity of scores on the POMA-G was investigated for 34 community-dwelling older people by correlating POMA-G scores with their ankle ranges of motion, resulting in a Spearman correlation of .63. (4)

Although the data presented above are encouraging, the number of clinimetric studies is still relatively small, in particular, with regard to validity. Moreover, all reliability values reported so far refer to relative reliability; no findings have been published with regard to absolute reliability or to the related characteristic of responsiveness of the POMA scale. This dearth of published data raises questions about the use of the POMA for monitoring patients' clinical recovery process or responses to interventions, (20) even though the POMA has been used extensively for these goals. (7-13)

Given these considerations, we conducted a large-scale clinimetric study with older adults living in long-term care facilities in order to extend the small database with respect to the relative interrater and test-retest reliability and validity (concurrent, discriminant, and predictive) of scores on the original POMA and to add important information about its absolute reliability and the minimal detectable change, which was the type of change chosen for a study on responsiveness. (15)

Method

Participants

Data for the present study were collected from participants in a randomized controlled trial (RCT) investigating the effects of 2 exercise programs. These participants were recruited from 15 long-term self-care and nursing care residences, with the number of residents ranging from 120 to 500. In self-care residences, people live independently but have access to on-site nursing care and dining and recreational facilities. In nursing care residences, people live less independently, with provisions for full nursing care if necessary. Preceding the RCT, all residents were invited to meetings in which information about the setup of the RCT and exercise programs was given. People who were interested in participation were screened on the basis of the following inclusion criteria: ability to walk independently across a distance of at least 6 m, with or without the use of a walking aid; capacity to understand instructions to be provided during the programs; and absence of medical contraindications to participation, as judged by the volunteers' general practitioners. The second criterion was operationalized by a score of at least 18 on the Mini-Mental State Examination. (21) In addition, the nursing staff judged all volunteers meeting this criterion to be fit to participate.

Of the 278 interested and eligible participants, 33 were excluded because they had Mini-Mental State Examination scores of less than 18. The concurrent and discriminant validity data for the present study were obtained from the remaining 245 participants in the RCT. The reliability and responsiveness data were collected from a sample of 30 participants living in the last 3 included residences. Participants in the RCT who were living in the latter residences could volunteer to participate in the reliability and responsiveness study. Predictive validity was determined for the participants who were randomly assigned to the control group in the RCT; these participants did not receive any intervention, and their fall history was recorded over a period of 10 months after randomization for the RCT (n=72). The characteristics of the participants belonging to the 3 study groups are summarized in Table 1. All participants gave written informed consent.

Procedure and Data Collection

To assess concurrent validity, 2 research physical therapists, both with 4 years of experience in physical testing of older adults, made individual assessments of all participants. In addition to the POMA, the TUG, (22) the balance test from the Frailty and Injuries: Cooperative Studies of Intervention Techniques (FICSIT-4), (23) and a gait speed test (24) were administered. Information about the type of walking aid commonly used by the participants was collected to determine discriminant validity.

For the reliability and responsiveness part of the study, 2 graduate students who were studying human movement sciences and who received 8 hours of training in scoring the POMA scored the POMA for the 30 participants on 2 consecutive days while the physical therapists gave the test instructions to the participants. On both days, the students scored the POMA simultaneously but independently from each other. Given the short interval of about 24 hours between the 2 assessments, changes in performance attributable to changing health conditions or interventions seemed highly improbable. As indicated earlier, fall-related predictive validity was determined with the group of 72 control participants in the RCT, that is, participants who were not involved in an intervention program. Fall data were collected by means of fall diaries that were kept by the participants over a period of 10 months. A fall was defined as "an event that results in a person coming unintentionally to rest on the ground or other lower level." (25)

Measurement Instruments

The original POMA version used in this clinimetric evaluation (Appendix) (1) consists of 8 balance items and 8 gait items to be scored on a 2- or 3-point scale. The balance items include sitting balance, rising from a chair and sitting down again, standing balance (eyes open and eyes closed), and turning balance, adding up to a maximum score of 12 points (POMA-B). The gait items include gait initiation, step length, step height, step length symmetry and continuity, path direction, and trunk sway, adding up to a maximum score of 16 points (POMA-G). The total score (POMA-T) ranges from 0 to 28 points. Lower scores indicate poorer performance.

The TUG is a test of basic functional mobility and is scored as the minimum time needed to stand up from a standard armchair, walk across a distance of 3 m, turn around, walk back to the chair, and sit down again. Interrater reliability (ICC=.99) and test-retest reliability (ICC=.99) of TUG scores have been determined for 22 patients attending a geriatric hospital. (22) In that same study, the concurrent validity of TUG scores was determined for a larger group of 60 patients by correlating the time to complete the TUG with the Berg Balance Scale (Pearson r=-.81), a gait speed test (Pearson r=-.61), and the Barthel Index (Pearson r=-.51). (22)

The FICSIT-4 is used to test a person's ability to maintain balance in parallel stance, semitandem stance, tandem stance, and one-leg stance. Each position was tested for a maximum of 10 seconds, and participants proceeded to the next stance only when the previous stance could be maintained for at least 3 seconds. A summary score for the 4 positions was computed as suggested by Rossiter-Fornoff et al, (23) resulting in a scale ranging from 0 to 5 points, with higher scores indicating better balance performance. The test-retest reliability of scores on the FICSIT-3 (similar to the FICSIT-4, but without the one-leg stance) has been determined over intervals between 2 measurements ranging from 3 to 12 months. The Pearson r ranged from .25 to .74, with longer intervals resulting in lower test-retest correlations. (23)

Fast gait speed was determined across a distance of 6 m, which was marked on the floor with tape. The participants, who were allowed to use their usual walking aid, were asked to walk as fast as possible without running. They were instructed to wait with both feet 1 m behind the starting line and to start walking after a verbal command. Timing began after the leading foot crossed the starting line and stopped after the leading foot crossed the finish line. The participants were instructed to continue walking for a short distance after the finish line was crossed to prevent them from decelerating before this line was reached. Speed was computed by dividing distance (in meters) by time (in seconds). (24) The highest speed attained during 1 of 2 attempts was used for analysis. The test-retest reliability (ICC) for gait speed over an interval of about 2 weeks for a group of 105 frail older people (mean age=78.0 years) was .79. (26) The test-retest reliability values (ICCs) determined on the same day for comfortable and maximum gait speeds for a group of 96 subjects between 60 and 89 years of age were .97 and .96, respectively. (24)

Self-reported limitations in basic activities of daily living (BADL) and independent activities of daily living (LADL) were assessed by means of the Groningen Activity Restriction Scale (GARS). (27) The GARS consists of 18 items, covering 11 BADL and 7 IADL tasks, all scored on a 5-point scale (possible scoring range of 18-90 points, with higher scores indicating more limitations). The GARS has been used to determine changes in disablement over time, to differentiate between degrees of disability, and to assess the need for professional care. (27) The test-retest correlation, determined within a group of 77 subjects over a 4-month interval, was .74 (28); the interrater reliability has not been determined. An indication for concurrent validity was found in a population-based study of 4,777 subjects in which the GARS scores correlated highly with the scores on the physical functioning subscale of the 20-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF20) (Pearson r=-.72). (29) The latter subscale measures the extent to which health problems interfere with a variety of activities (eg, playing sports, carrying groceries, climbing stairs, and walking). (30)

Finally, the average number of minutes per day spent on habitual daily physical activities during the preceding 2 weeks was determined by administering the Longitudinal Aging Study Amsterdam Physical Activity Questionnaire (LAPAQ). (31) The LAPAQ covers the frequency and duration of walking outside, bicycling, gardening, light and heavy household activities, and sport activities during the preceding 2 weeks. The total amounts of activity measured by the LAPAQ and by means of a 7-day diary were highly correlated (Spearman R=.68; n=356; men and women 65 years of age and older). The test-retest reliability was established with the same group, and the weighted kappa coefficient of the total number of activities measured by the LAPAQ over 1 year was .65. (31)

Data Analysis

Assumptions of normality were not met for the POMA-T, POMA-B, POMA-G, and TUG. Therefore, all calculations of relative reliability and of concurrent and discriminant validity were based on nonparametric statistics. The computation of absolute reliability and responsiveness is based on differences in paired observations, assuming that these differences are normally distributed. This assumption held true for POMA-T but not for POMA-B and POMA-G. Consequently, absolute reliability findings are provided only for the former scale.

The relative interrater and test-retest reliability of the POMA scores were expressed in terms of Spearman rank correlations (R). These calculations were complemented by testing the differences between the paired scores given by the 2 raters and between the paired scores on the 2 test days by means of a Wilcoxon signed rank test.

Absolute interrater and test-retest reliability for the POMA-T were visualized by means of Bland-Altman plots with 95% limits of agreement (LOA). (32) In those plots, the differences (d) between each pair of observations are presented as a function of the average value for each pair of observations. Assuming a normal distribution of the differences, 95% of those differences may be expected to fall within the interval d [+ or -] (1.96 x [SD.sub.diff]), with d being the mean difference and [SD.sub.diff] being the standard deviation of the difference. The mean difference d captures the systematic difference between the paired observations, whereas the [SD.sub.diff] captures the agreement at the level of individual observations.

The responsiveness of the POMA-T was considered at both the individual level and the group level and is presented in the units of measurements of this scale. The responsiveness at the individual level is captured as the minimal detectable change with a confidence level of 95% ([MDC.sub.95]) at the individual level ([MDC.sub.95,ind]), as follows:

[MDC.sub.95,ind] = 1.96x [square root of 2] x SEM,

where SEM is the standard error of measurement (ie, the square root of the within-subject variance). (15) Changes smaller than [MDC.sub.95,ind] cannot be reliably (with a confidence level of 95%) interpreted as "real" changes in the score for a subject compared with chance fluctuations. The responsiveness to changes at the group level, known as the [MDC.sub.95] at the group level ([MDC.sub.95,group]), depends on the size of the group (n), as follows (33):

[MDC.sub.95,group] = [MDC.sub.95,ind]/[square root of n].

Changes smaller than [MDC.sub.95,group] cannot be reliably (with a confidence level of 95%) interpreted as "real" changes in the mean score for a group compared with chance fluctuations.

The concurrent validity of the POMA scores was assessed by calculating their Spearman rank correlations (R) with the scores on a number of reference tests described above. The discriminant validity was calculated by relating the POMA scores to the type of walking aid commonly used by the participants (none, cane or stick, walker, or wheelchair) by means of a Kruskal-Wallis test with type of walking aid as the experimental factor, followed by post hoc comparisons by means of Mann-Whitney U tests with Bonferroni adjustments.

Fall-related predictive validity was determined by predicting future falls on the basis of the POMA scores. A "nonfaller" was defined as a subject who did not fall or fell only once during the follow-up period, whereas a "faller" was defined as a subject who fell at least twice during the follow-up period (as in the study by Tinetti et [al.sup.3]). Predictive validity was expressed in terms of sensitivity and specificity. Sensitivity, in this context, is defined as the probability that a future faller is indeed predicted to be a faller, whereas specificity is defined as the probability that a future nonfaller is indeed predicted to be a nonfaller. Receiver operating characteristic curves were used for selecting the optimal cutoff scores, and 95% confidence intervals were calculated. All analyses were performed with SPSS version 11.5 * for Windows.

Results

Floor and Ceiling Effects

The scores on the 3 POMA scales were inspected for possible floor and ceiling effects by determining the number of participants with the lowest and highest possible scores on the 3 scales. The lowest possible scores, that is, 0 points, on the POMA-T, POMA-B, and POMA-G were not obtained, whereas 11 (4.5%), 13 (5.3%), and 52 (21.2%) of the participants obtained the highest possible scores on these tests. The distribution of the POMA-T scores for the 245 participants is shown in Figure 1.

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

Reliability

The Spearman correlations indicating the interrater and test-retest relative reliability for the POMA scales are shown in Table 2. All test-retest reliability values for the POMA-T, POMA-B, and POMA-G varied between .72 and .86, whereas the interrater reliability values ranged from .80 to .93. No significant differences between the pairs of scores were found, except with regard to the test-retest reliability of the POMA-G scores; on the latter scale, rater 1 had a significantly lower mean score on day 2 than on day 1 (Wilcoxon signed rank test, P=.03).

The Bland-Altman plots illustrating the absolute reliability of the POMA-T are shown in Figure 2. From these plots, it is clear that the mean differences between the paired observations showed only small and nonsignificant deviations from 0, indicating that no systematic differences in scores emerged between the 2 raters or between day 1 and day 2 of assessment. The 95% LOA for POMA-T, which also are shown in Table 2, ranged from -4.0 to 4.6 for test-retest reliability and from -3.6 to 2.9 for interrater reliability.

[FIGURE 2 OMITTED]

Responsiveness

The [MDC.sub.95] values for both individual and group changes in POMA-T scores are shown in Table 2. For individual assessments, the [MDC.sub.95,ind] values were 4.0 to 4.2. When the test-retest assessments were evaluated at the group level, the [MDC.sub.95,group] values were 0.7 to 0.8. These values indicate that changes in scores at the individual level should be at least 5 points and that changes in mean group scores should exceed 0.8 to be deemed reliable with a confidence level of 95%.

Validity

The Spearman correlations between the scores on the POMA scales and the scores on the reference tests (walking speed, TUG, FICSIT-4, CARS, and LAPAQ), indicating the concurrent validity of scores for the scales, are shown in Table 3. All correlations were significant at the .01 level. Except for the correlations with LAPAQ which were low, all correlations between the POMA-T and the POMA-B on the one hand and the reference tests on the other hand ranged from [absolute value of .64] to [absolute value of .70]. The corresponding correlations between the POMA-G and the reference tests were lower, ranging from [absolute value of .51] to [absolute value of .56].

The mean scores (and standard deviations) on the POMA scales for the subjects who used no walking aid (n=86), a cane or a stick (n=26), a walker (n=121), or a wheelchair (n=12) are shown in Table 4. Significant group differences between mean POMA-T scores emerged between the independent ambulators and the cane and walker users on the one hand and the wheelchair users on the other hand and between the independent ambulators and the walker users. The POMA-B scores differentiated between the independent ambulators and the cane users and between the walker and wheelchair users. Finally, the POMA-G scores led to the same differentiations as the POMA-T scores. The wheelchair users were differentiated from the other 3 groups, and the independent ambulators were differentiated from the walker users.

Among the subsample of 72 participants whose data were entered into the analysis involving falls, 24 (33%) were classified as "fallers" (at least 2 falls) and 48 (67%) were classified as "nonfallers" (either no falls or one fall). Sensitivity and specificity values indicating the predictive validity of scores for the POMA scales in terms of discriminating future fallers from nonfallers, are shown in Table 5. It is evident that the predictive powers of the POMA-T, POMA-B, and POMA-G are about the same: Given optimal cutoff values of 19, 10, and 9, the sensitivity (95% confidence interval) of all of the scales was 64.0% (44.5%-79.8%), and their specificity values were 66.1% (53.0%-77.1%), 66.1% (53.0%-77.1%), and 62.5% (49.4%-74.0%), respectively.

Discussion

The relative interrater and test-retest reliability values for the POMA-T, POMA-B, and POMA-G, as quantified by Spearman correlation coefficients, were rather high, but for the POMA-G, the test scores tended to be lower on the retest than on the first test. Combined with the high ICCs found in previous studies, (4,7, 17) these data indicate that the relative reliability characteristics of the POMA scales seem to be adequate.

From a clinical point of view, relative reliability must be considered less relevant than absolute reliability. The LOA showed that for the POMA-T, no systematic bias was present for test-retest and interrater situations. The test-retest reliability data have direct implications for responsiveness. The responsiveness findings with regard to the POMA-T indicated that, given a confidence interval of 95%, intervention effects should be at least 5 points at the individual level and at least 0.8 point at the group level (with a group size of n=30) before a real improvement rather than a chance fluctuation can be reliably concluded. It should be emphasized, however, that this real change should be attributed to the intervention only when other systematic influences, such as spontaneous recovery, are controlled for by means of an adequate control group.

In earlier clinical trials in which the POMA was used as an outcome measure, statistically significant intervention effects of 3.5 to 5.3 points (relative to the results for a control group) were reported, (8,11,34,35) Given these average group effects and the order of magnitude of the critical [MDC.sub.95,ind] determined in the present study, one may safely conclude that for a number of subjects, reliable intervention effects indeed have occurred. Even in those cases, however, the clinical relevance of the improvement is not beyond doubt. Clinical relevance can be demonstrated by showing that the change scores also exceed the minimal clinically important difference, defined as the smallest change that ensures clinically relevant improvement. Several methods have been proposed to determine the minimal clinically important difference. (36) An anchor-based method is preferred, in which the change in an external criterion that may be determined from either a clinician's or a patient's perspective is used to "anchor" improvement. However, finding a valid external criterion, which often will be very difficult, (37) was beyond the scope of the present study.

The concurrent validity values for the POMA-T and the POMA-B were quite acceptable, as demonstrated by the association with other physical performance tests (R=[absolute value of .64] - [absolute value of .68]) and self-reported limitations (R=[absolute value of .68] - [absolute value of .70]). The validity of the POMA-G scores was weaker. The Spearman correlations in question ranged from [absolute value of .51] to [absolute value of .56]. The correlations between the scores on the POMA scales and the self-reported amounts of physical activity (LAPAQ) were low, ranging from .33 to .38. It may be argued, however, that self-reported physical activity is less adequate as a reference test, because it is a measure not of performance but of perception. (38) Generally speaking, the concurrent validity values for the POMA-T and the POMA-B concur with the (sparse) data from previous studies. (4-6) For the POMA-G, no such data were reported earlier.

Discriminant validity was demonstrated by finding significant differences between subgroups of subjects defined according to the type of walking aid that they used. Although the POMA-T and the POMA-G differentiated among the same (combined) subgroups and the POMA-B differentiated between other subgroups, there is no evidence for clear differences among the discriminatory powers of the 3 scales.

The predictive validity with regard to falling was not satisfactory for any of the POMA scales. Given optimal cutoff criteria, both the sensitivity and the specificity of the POMA-T and its subscales ranged from 62.5% to 66.1%. However, in studies in which other versions of the POMA scale were used, similar values for sensitivity and specificity were reported. In a prospective study of 60 community-dwelling older adults and using a 16-point version of the POMA-B, the sensitivity was 61.5% and the specificity was 69.5%. (19) In another prospective study of 225 community-dwelling adults 75 years of age and older and using a 40-point version of the POMA-T, the sensitivity was 70% and the specificity was 52%. (39) In a case-control study of 80 participants and using a modified 57-point version of the POMA, the sensitivity was 70% and the specificity was 65%. (40) Only one study, a case-control study involving community-dwelling older people and using a 24-point version of the POMA-B, demonstrated much higher sensitivity and specificity: 95.5% for frequent fallers versus nonfallers. (41)

Conclusion

The POMA-T and its subscales POMA-B and POMA-G showed good relative reliability, as well as concurrent and discriminant validity. Nevertheless, the POMA-G performed less well with regard to these clinimetric properties. Given that the latter scale also showed a ceiling effect, the POMA-T and the POMA-B should be preferred. Responsiveness could be assessed only for POMA-T; at the individual level, a change in score of at least 5 points proved to be reliable, whereas a change in the mean score of 0.8 point indicated a reliable change in the mean score for a group of 30 subjects. Furthermore, it was demonstrated that the usefulness of the POMA scales for predicting future falls was severely limited.

Appendix.
Performance-Oriented Mobility Assessment (3)

Balance

Instructions: The subject is seated on a hard,
armless chair. The following maneuvers are tested.

Maneuver                       Description of Scoring

1.  Sitting balance            0=Leans or slides on the chair, unable
                                 to maintain an upright position
                               1=Holds onto the chair to be able to
                                 sit upright
                               2=Sits stably, upright, and safely on
                                 the chair

2.  Arising                    0=Unable to arise without help
                               1=Able to arise but uses arms
                               2=Able to arise in one smooth motion
                                 without using arms

3.  Immediate standing         0=Unsteady, marked staggering, moves
    balance (first 5 s)          feet, marked trunk sway, or grabs
                                 object for support
                               1=Steady but uses walker or cane or
                                 mild staggering but catches self
                                 without grabbing object for support
                               2=Steady without walker or cane or
                                 other support

4.  Standing balance           0=Unsteady
    (after 5 s)                1=Steady but wide stance or uses cane
                                 or other support
                               2=Steady with narrow stance and without
                                 support

5.  Standing balance with      0=Unsteady
    eyes closed and feet       1=Steady but wide stance or support is
    together                     needed
                               2=Steady with narrow stance and without
                                 support

6.  Nudged (light push on      0=Begins to fall, needs support to
    sternum, subject with        prevent falling
    feet close together)       1=Takes more than 2 steps backward
                                 to prevent falling
                               2=Steady, takes fewer than 2 steps
                                 backward

7.  Turning 360 [degrees]      0=Unstable, needs support
                               1=Stable with discontinuous steps
                                 (places one foot first before lifting
                                 the other)
                               2=Stable without support and with
                                 continuous steps

8.  Sitting down               0=Unsafe (misjudged distance,
                                 falls onto chair)
                               1=Uses arms or not a smooth motion
                               2=Safe, smooth motion

Total balance score            0-16 points

Gait

Instructions: The subject stands with the examiner, walks down the
hallway or room at the usual pace. The subject is asked to walk
down the walkway, turn, and walk back after being instructed to
"go." The subject should use the usual walking aid. The following
characteristics are scored.

Characteristic                 Description of Scoring

1.  Initiation of gait         0=Any hesitancy or multiple
    (immediately after "go")     attempts to start
                               1=No hesitancy

2a. Step height                0=Left foot does not clear floor
                                 completely with step or is lifted
                                 too high (above right medial
                                 malleolus)
                               1=Left foot completely clears floor
                               0=Right foot does not clear floor
                                 completely with step or is lifted
                                 too high (above left medial malleolus)
                               1=Right foot completely clears floor

26. Step length                0=Left swing foot does not pass right
                                 stance foot with step
                               1=Left foot passes right stance foot
                                 with step
                               0=Right swing foot does not pass left
                                 stance foot with step
                               1=Right foot passes left stance foot
                                 with step

3.  Step symmetry              0=Right and left step lengths are not
                                 equal
                               1=Right and left step lengths appear
                                 equal

4.  Step continuity            0=Stopping or discontinuity between
                                 steps
                               1=Steps appear continuous

5.  Path deviation             0=Marked deviation to both sides or
                                 in one direction
                               1=Mild or moderate deviation or straight
                                 with a walking aid
                               2=Straight without a walking aid

6.  Trunk sway                 0=Marked sway or flexed knees or trunk
                                 or uses arms to maintain balance
                               1=Stable trunk balance without sway,
                                 no flexion, no use of arms, and no
                                 use of walking aid

7.  Walking stance             0=Heels apart while walking
                               1=Heels almost touching while walking

8.  Turning while walking      0=Staggering, taking breaks,
    (180 [degrees])              discontinuous motion
                               1=Smooth, continuous motion

Total walking score            0-12 points

This article was received May 23, 2005, and was accepted January 31, 2006.

References

(1) Tinetti ME. Performance-oriented assessment of mobility problems in elderly patients. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1986;34:119-126.

(2) Hayes KW, Johnson ME. Measures of adult general performance tests. Arthritis (;are Res. 2003;49:$28-$42.

(3) Tinetti ME, Williams TF, Mayewski R. Fall risk index for elderly patients based on number of chronic disabilities. Am J Med. 1986;80: 429-434.

(4) Mecagni C, Smith JP, Roberts KE, O'Sullivan SB. Balance and ankle range of motion in community-dwelling women aged 64 to 87 years: a correlational study. Phys Ther. 2000;80:1004-1011.

(5) Baloh RW, Ying SH, Jacobson KM. A longitudinal study of gait and balance dysfunction in normal older people. Arch Neurol 2003;60: 835-839.

(6) Cho BL, Scarpace D, Alexander NB. Tests of stepping as indicators of mobility,, balance, and fall risk in balance-impaired older adults. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2004;52:1168-1173.

(7) Harada N, Chiu V, Fowler E, et al. Physical therapy to improve functioning of older people in residential care facilities. Phys Ther. 1995; 75:830- 838.

(8) MacRae PG, Asplund LA, Schnelle JF, et al. A walking program for nursing home residents: effects on walk endurance, physical activity, mobility, and quality of life. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1996;44:175-180.

(9) Protas EJ, Harris C, Moch C, Rusk M. Sensitivity of a clinical scale of balance and gait in frail nursing home residents. Disabil Rehabil. 2000;22:372-378.

(10) Rubenstein LZ, Josephson KR, Trueblood PR, et al. Effects of a group exercise program on strength, mobility, and falls among IMP prone elderly men. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2000;55:M317-M321.

(11) Hauer K, Pfisterer M, Schuler M, et al. Two years later: a prospective long-term follow-up of a training intervention in geriatric patients with a history of severe falls. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2003;84:1426-1432.

(12) DeVito CA, Morgan RO, Duque M, et al. Physical performance effects of low-intensity exercise among clinically defined high-risk elders. Gerontology. 2003;49:146-154.

(13) Dyer CA, Taylor GJ, Reed M, et al. Falls prevention in residential care homes: a randomised controlled trial. Age Ageing. 2004;33: 596-602.

(14) Atkinson G, Nevill AM. Statistical methods for assessing measurement error (reliability) in variables relevant to sports medicine. Sports Med. 1998;26:217-238.

(15) Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Katz JN, Wright JG. A taxonomy for responsiveness. J Clin Epidemiol. 2001;54:1204-1217.

(16) Dekker J, Dallmeijer AJ, Lankhorst GJ. Clinimetrics in rehabilitation medicine: current issues in developing and applying measurement instruments. J Rehabil Med. 2005;37:193-201.

(17) McGinty SM, Masters LD, Till DB. Inter-tester reliability using the Tinetti gait and balance assessment scale. Issues on Aging. 1999;22:3-5.

(18) Cipriany-Dacko LM, Innerst D, Johannsen J, Rude V. Inter-rater reliability of the Tinetti balance scores in novice and experienced physical therapy clinicians. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1997;78:1160-1164.

(19) Verghese J, Buschke H, Viola L, et al. Validity of divided attention tasks in predicting falls in older individuals: a preliminary study. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2002;50:1572-1576.

(20) de Vet HC, Terwee CB, Bouter LM. Current challenges in clinimettics. J Clin Epidemiol. 2003;56:1137-1141.

(21) Folstein MF, Folstein SE, McHugh PR. "Mini-Mental State": a practical method for grading cognitive state of patients for the clinician. J Psychiatr Res. 1975;12:189-198.

(22) Podsiadlo D, Richardson S. The Timed "Up & Go": a test of basic functional mobility for frail elderly persons. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1991;39: 142-148.

(23) Rossiter-Fornoff JE, Wolf SL, Wolfson LI, Buchner DM. A cross-sectional validation study of the FICSIT common data base static balance measures: frailty and injuries--cooperative studies of intervention techniques. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 1995;50:M291-M297.

(24) Steffen TM, Hacker TA, Mollinger L. Age- and gender-related test performance in community-dwelling elderly people: Six-Minute Walk Test, Berg Balance Scale, Timed "Up & Go" Test, and gait speeds. Phys Ther. 2002;82:128-137.

(25) Buchner DM, Hornbrook MC, Kumer NG, et al. Development of the common data base for the FICSIT trials. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1993;41: 297-308.

(26) Jette AM, Jette DU, Ng J, et al. Are performance-based measures sufficiently reliable for use in multicenter trials? J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 1999;54:M3-M6.

(27) Suurmeijer TP, Doeglas DM, Mourn T, et al. The Groningen Activity Restriction Scale for measuring disability: its utility in international comparisons. Am J Public Health. 1994;84:1270-1273.

(28) Kempen GIJM, Doeglas DM, Suurmeijer TPBM. The Assessment of (I)ADL With the Groningen Activity Restriction Scale: A Manual [in Dutch]. Groningen, the Netherlands: Northern Centre for Health Care Research, University of Groningen; 1993.

(29) Kempen GIJM, Miedema I, Ormel J, Molenaar W. The assessment of disability with the Groningen Activity Restriction Scale: conceptual framework and psychometric properties. Soc Sci Med. 1996;43: 1601-1610.

(30) Stewart AL, Hays RD, Ware JE Jr. The MOS short-form general health survey: reliability and validity in a patient population. Med Care. 1988;26:724-735.

(31) Stel VS, Smit JH, Pluijm SM, et al. Comparison of the LASA Physical Activity Questionnaire with a 7-day diary and pedometer. J Clin Epidemiol. 2004;57:252-258.

(32) Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 1986;1:307-310.

(33) de Vet HC, Bouter LM, Bezemer PD, Beurskens AJ. Reproducibility and responsiveness of evaluative outcome measures: theoretical considerations illustrated by an empirical example. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2001;17:479-487.

(34) Galindo-Ciocon DJ, Ciocon JO, Galindo DJ. Gait training and falls in the elderly. J Gerontol Nurs. 1995;21:10-17.

(35) Hauer K, Specht N, Schuler M, et al. Intensive physical training in geriatric patients after severe falls and hip surgery. Age Ageing. 2002; 31:49-57.

(36) Wells G, Beaton D, Shea B, et al. Minimal clinically important differences: review of methods. J Rheumatol. 2001;28:406-412.

(37) Schuck P, Zwingmann C. The 'smallest real difference' as a measure of sensitivity to change: a critical analysis, Int J Rehabil Res. 2003;26: 85-91.

(38) Reuben DB, Valle LA, Hays RD, Siu AL. Measuring physical function in community-dwelling older persons: a comparison of self: administered, interviewer-administered, and performance-based measures. Am J Geriatr Soc. 1995;43:17-23.

(39) Raiche M, Hebert R, Prince F, Corriveau H. Screening older adults at risk of falling with the Tinetti balance scale. Lancet. 2000;356: 1001-1002.

(40) Meldrum D, Finn AM. An investigation of balance function in elderly subjects who have and have not fallen. Physiotherapy. 1993;79: 839-842.

(41) Chiu AY, Au-Yeung SS, Lo SK. A comparison of four functional tests in discriminating fallers from non-fallers in older people. Disabil Rehabil. 2003;25:45-50.

MJ Faber, PhD, is Senior Researcher, Faculty of Human Movement Sciences, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. Address all correspondence to Dr Faber at Centre for Quality of Care Research (WOK), Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, PO Box 9101, 117 KWAZO, 6500 HB Nijmegen, the Netherlands ([e-mail]).

RJ Bosscher, PhD, is Associate Professor, Faculty of Human Movement Sciences, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.

PCW van Wieringen, PhD, is Associate Professor, Faculty of Human Movement Sciences, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam

Dr Faber, Dr Bosscher and Dr van Wieringen provided concept/idea/research design. Dr Faber and Dr van Wieringen provided writing. Dr Faber provided data collection, project management, subjects, and data analysis. Dr van Wieringen provided fund procurement. Dr Bosscher provided consultation (including review of manuscript before submission).

The medical ethical committee of the Vrije Universiteit Medical Centre approved the study protocol.

Table 1.

Characteristics of Participants in the Concurrent and Discriminant
Validity Study, the Fall-Related Validity Study, and the Reliability
and Responsiveness Study

                                Value in the Following Study:

                           Concurrent
                               and           Fall-       Reliability
                           Discriminant     Related          and
                             Validity      Validity     Responsiveness
Characteristic (a)          (n = 245)      (n = 72)        (n = 30)

Age, y, [bar.X] (SD)        84.9 (6.0)     84.7 (6.1)      83.1 (7.3)

No. (%) of women             191 (78)        58 (81)         24 (80)

MMSE score, [bar.X] (SD)
  (range = 0-30)            25.7 (2.9)     25.7 (2.9)      26.5 (2.4)

Self-reported health
 status, no. (%) of
 subjects
  Poor                         4 (1.6)        0 (0)           1 (3.3)
  Fair                        87 (35.7)      21 (29.2)        8 (26.7)
  Good                       104 (42.6)      34 (47.2)       17 (56.7)
  Excellent                   49 (20.1)      17 (23.7)        4 (13.3)

Walking aid, no. (%) of
 subjects
  None                        86 (35)        25 (35)         12 (40)
  Cane or stick               26 (11)         9 (13)          5 (17)
  Walker                     121 (49)        30 (42)         13 (43)
  Wheelchair                  12 (5)          8 (11           0 (0)

Physical activity,
 min/d, [bar.X] (SD)          65 (49)        70 (46)         75 (50)

Maximum walking speed,
 m/s, [bar.X] (SD)          0.76 (0.31)    0.79 (0.34)     0.95 (0.25)

FICSIT-4 score, [bar.X]
 (SD) (range = 0-5)          2.4 (1.3)      2.5 (1.3)       2.6 (1.4)

TUG score, s, [bar.X]
 (SD)                       24.6 (14.8)    23.0 (14.6)     16.6 (6.0)

GARS score, [bar.X] (SD)
 (range = 18-90)            42.4 (13.1)    39.4 (13.6)     36.8 (11.6)

POMA score, [bar.X] (SD)
  Total (range = 0-28)      19.3 (5.3)    19.7 (5.7)       18.9 (5.4)
  Gait (range = 0-12)        9.0 (2.5)      9.2 (2.6)       8.4 (2.6)
  Balance (range = 0-16)    10.3 (3.5)    10.5 (3.8)       10.5 (3.1)

(a) MMSE = Mini-Mental State Examination, FICSIT-4 = balance test
from the Frailty and Injuries: Cooperative Studies of Intervention
Techniques, TUG = Timed Up & Go" Test, GARS = Groningen Activity
Restriction Scale, POMA = Performance-Oriented Mobility Assessment.

Table 2.
Reliability and Responsiveness of the Performance-Oriented Mobility
Assessment (POMA) Total Scale (POMA-T), Balance Subscale (POMA-B),
and Gait Subscale (POMA-G) for Test-Retest and Interrater Situations
(n=30)

                         Test-Retest

Parameter (a)            Rater 1       Rater 2

POMA-T (range=0-28)
  Reliability
    Spearman R             .86           .82
    Mean difference       0.5           0.0
    95% LOA              -3.6 to 4.6   -4.0 to 4.0
  Responsiveness
    [MDC.sub.95,ind]      4.2           4.0
    [MDC.sub.95,group]    0.8           0.7
POMA-B (range=0-16)
  Reliability
    Spearman R             .78           .74
POMA-G (range=0-12)
  Reliability
    Spearman R             .72           .77

                         Interrater

Parameter (a)            Day 1         Day 2

POMA-T (range=0-28)
  Reliability
    Spearman R             .93           .91
    Mean difference       0.1          -0.4
    95% LOA              -2.8 to 2.9   -3.6 to 2.8
  Responsiveness
    [MDC.sub.95,ind]
    [MDC.sub.95,group]
POMA-B (range=0-16)
  Reliability
    Spearman R             .90           .88
POMA-G (range=0-12)
  Reliability
    Spearman R             .80           .89

(a) LOA=limits of agreements, [MDC.sub.95,ind]=minimal detectable
change for individual subjects at a 95% confidence level,
[MDC.sub.95,group]=minimal detectable change for a group at a
95% confidence level.

Table 3.
Concurrent Validity of the Performance-Oriented Mobility Assessment
(POMA) Total Scale (POMA-T), Balance Subscale (POMA-B), and Gait
Subscale (POMA-G), Expressed as Spearman Rank Correlations

                          Spearman Rank Correlation (b) for:

Test (a)                    POMA-T     POMA-B     POMA-G

Maximum walking speed         .65        .64        .52
TUG                          -.68       -.66       -.56
FICSIT-4                      .67        .67        .51
GARS                         -.70       -.68       -.55
LAPAQ                         .38        .35        .33

(a) TUG=Timed "Up & Go" Test, FICSIT-4=balance test from the Frailty
and Injuries: Cooperative Studies of Intervention Techniques, GARS=
Groningen Activity Restriction Scale, LAPAQ=Longitudinal Aging Study
Amsterdam Physical Activity Questionnaire.

(b) All correlations were significant at P<.01.

Table 4.
Discriminant Validity of the Performance-Oriented Mobility Assessment
(POMA) Total Scale (POMA-T), Balance Subscale (POMA-B), and Gait
Subscale (POMA-G) for Categories Based on the Commonly Used Walking
Aid for Daily Mobility

            [bar.X] (SD) Score on (a):
Walking
Aid         POMA-T               POMA-B            POMA-G

None        21.9 (5.5) A,B       11.9 (3.6) (A,B)  10.0 (2.3) (A,B)
Cane        20.0 (4.5) B         11.1 (2.5) (A,B)   8.8 (2.4)
Walker      17.9 (4.4) B,C        9.3 (3.0) (C,D)   8.6 (2.2) (B,C)
Wheelchair  12.9 (5.0) (A,C,D)    6.8 (3.1) (C,D)   6.2 (2.9) (A,C)

(a) Post hoc testing revealed significant subgroup differences after
Bonferroni corrections for the following comparisons: A=comparison
with walker, B=comparison with wheelchair, C=comparison with none,
and D=comparison with cane.

Table 5.
Predictive Validity of the Performance-Oriented Mobility Assessment
(POMA) Total Scale (POMA-T), Balance Subscale (POMA-B), and Gait
Subscale (POMA-G) in Predicting Fallers and Nonfallers

                       Value for:

Parameter              POMA-T             POMA-B

[bar.X] (SD) score
  Nonfallers (n=56)    20.8 (5.5)         11.1 (3.8)
  Fallers (n=25)       17.4 (5.5)          9.2 (3.6)
Optimal cutoff point   19                 10
Sensitivity, % (95%    64.0 (44.5-79.8)   64.0 (44.5-79.8)
  confidence
  interval)
Specificity, % (95%    66.1 (53.0-77.1)   66.1 (53.0-77.1)
  confidence
  interval)

                       Value for:

Parameter              POMA-G

[bar.X] (SD) score
  Nonfallers (n=56)     9.7 (2.4)
  Fallers (n=25)        8.3 (2.7)
Optimal cutoff point    9
Sensitivity, % (95%    64.0 (44.5-79.8)
  confidence
  interval)
Specificity, % (95%    62.5 (49.4-74.0)
  confidence
  interval)