Is there a Difference between the Timed Up and Go Test and Physical Function due to the Difference in Perception of Slip?
top of page
Asian Institute of Research, Journal Publication, Journal Academics, Education Journal, Asian Institute
Asian Institute of Research, Journal Publication, Journal Academics, Education Journal, Asian Institute

Journal of Health and Medical Sciences

ISSN 2622-7258

Screen Shot 2018-08-12 at 1.24.09 AM.png
Screen Shot 2018-08-12 at 1.24.02 AM.png
Screen Shot 2018-08-12 at 1.23.57 AM.png
Screen Shot 2018-08-12 at 1.23.52 AM.png
crossref
doi
open access

Published: 01 June 2021

Is there a Difference between the Timed Up and Go Test and Physical Function due to the Difference in Perception of Slip?

Kazuki Kubo, Yuta Suto, Shin Okazaki, Yuko Takahashi, Tomoyuki Shinohara, Kazumasa Nakagawa

Horie Hospital, Japanese Red Cross Maebashi Hospital, Fujioka General Hospital, Takasaki University of Health and Welfare

journal of social and political sciences
pdf download

Download Full-Text Pdf

doi

10.31014/aior.1994.04.02.164

Pages: 116-121

Keywords: Fall prevention, Environmental Adaptation, Attention function, Slip, Elderly

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to examine whether there are differences in the timed up and go (TUG) test results and physical functions due to the differences in slip recognition when performing TUG on wood flooring. The study consisted of 30 community-dwelling elderly subjects, aging over 65 years old. The differences in the perception of floor slippage before and after TUG were as follows: (1) slippery-slipped group (S-S group), (2) slippery-not slipped group (S-N group), and (3) not slippery-not slipped group (N-N group). The modified falls efficacy scale, grip strength, knee extension strength, one-leg standing time, functional reach test, Trail Making Test (TMT), two-step test were used in this study. The results showed no statistically significant difference in TUG test. However, statistically significant difference was observed in TMT between the S-S and N-N groups (p = 0.019, r = 0.51, respectively) and between the S-S and S-N groups (p = 0.003, r = 0.65, respectively). It was found that there was no statistically significant difference in TUG results due to the recognition differences of slippage. However, it was suggested that the subject who reported a history of slippage had a high attention function and could pay attention to the floor environment.

References

  1. Cameron, I. D., Dyer S. M., Panagoda, C.E. et al. (2018). Interventions for preventing falls in older people in care facilities and hospitals. Cochrane Library. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD005465.pub3

  2. Corrigan, J. D., Hinkeldey, M. S. (1987). Relationships between parts A and B of the Trail Making Test. JClin Psychol, 43(4), 402-409. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-4679(198707)43:4<402::AID-JCLP2270430411>3.0.CO;2-E

  3. Duncan, P. W., Weiner, D.K. (1990). Functional reach: a new clinical measure of balance. J Geront, 145, 192-197. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronj/45.6.M192

  4. Harada, H., Notota, M., Nakanishi, M. et al. (2006). Effects of age and years of education on neuropsychological data of Japanese healthy elderly persons. Higher brain function research, 26, 16-24. https://doi.org/10.2496/hbfr.26.16

  5. Hill, K. D. (1996). Fear of falling revisited. Arch Phys Med Rehabil, 77, 1025-1029. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0003-9993(96)90063-5

  6. Hotta, S., Kikuchi, Y., Nakamura, M., et al. (2017). Effect of surface appearance on tactile roughness of coated wood. Journal of the Society of Materials Science, 66(10), 719-724. https://doi.org/10.2472/jsms.66.719

  7. Kashima, H., Handa, T., Katoh, M., et al. (1986). Disorders of attention due to frontal lobe lesion. Advances in Neurological Sciences, 30(5), 847-858．

  8. Kubo, K., Suto, Y., Takahashi, Y., Shinohara, T., Nakagawa, K. (2021). How the Timed Up & Go Test results differ depending on the floor surface? The Gunma journal of physical therapy. (in press)

  9. Melzer, I., Benjuya, N., Kaplanski, J. (2004). Postural stability in the elderly: a comparison between fallers and non-fallers. Age Ageing, 33(6), 602-607. https://doi.org/10.1093/ageing/afh218

  10. Muranaga, S., Hirano, K. (2003). Development of a convenient way to predict ability to walk, using a Two-step test.Journal of The Showa University Society, 63(3), 301-308. https://doi.org/10.14930/jsma1939.63.301

  11. Ohkoshi, M., Yamazaki, S., Noguchi, K., et al. (2011). The difference of tactile sensations of coated oak wood between elderly person and young person. Journal of the Society of Materials Science, 60 (4), 293-299. https://doi.org/10.2472/jsms.60.293

  12. Ono, H., Sudoh, T., Takeda, K. et al. (1985). Study on the slipperiness of building floors and it's method of evaluation : Part 4 Evaluating method of the slip-periness of building floors.J struct constr eng, 356, 1-8. https://doi.org/10.3130/aijsx.356.0_1

  13. Podsiadlo, D. (1991). The Timed “Up & Go”: A test of basic functional mobility for frail elderly persons．J Am geriatr Soc, 39, 142-148. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-5415.1991.tb01616.x

  14. Shumway-Cook, A., Brauer, S., Woollacott, M. (2000). Predicting the probability for falls in community-dwelling older adults using the Timed Up & Go Test. Phys Ther, 80, 896-903. https://doi.org/10.1093/ptj/80.9.896

  15. Tanaka, S., Muraki, S., Saito, S. (2011). Effects of floor materials on a gait. The Japanese Journal of Ergonomics, 47, 288-289. https://doi.org/10.14874/jergo.47spl.0.288.0

  16. Tang, P. F., Woollacott, M. H. (1998). Inefficient postural responses to unexpected slips during walking in older adults. The Journals of Gerontology, 53(6), 471-480. https://doi.org/10.1093/gerona/53A.6.M471

  17. Tinetti, M. E., et al. (1988). Risk factors for falls among elderly persons living in the community. N Engl J Med, 319 (26), 1701-1707. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM198812293192604

  18. Yamasaki, H., Kato, M., Kajihara, K. (2001). The upper limit of ability to offer resistance on measurement of knee extensor muscle strength. General Reha-bilitation, 35, 1369-1371. https://doi.org/10.11477/mf.1552101116

bottom of page