Modifying a functional obstacle course to test balance and mobility in thecommunity

Citation
Km. Means et Ps. O'Sullivan, Modifying a functional obstacle course to test balance and mobility in thecommunity, J REHAB RES, 37(5), 2000, pp. 621-632
Citations number
13
Categorie Soggetti
Rehabilitation,"Ortopedics, Rehabilitation & Sport Medicine
Journal title
JOURNAL OF REHABILITATION RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
ISSN journal
07487711 → ACNP
Volume
37
Issue
5
Year of publication
2000
Pages
621 - 632
Database
ISI
SICI code
0748-7711(200009/10)37:5<621:MAFOCT>2.0.ZU;2-H
Abstract
A previously reported functional obstacle course (FOC) developed to assess elderly persons with and without balance and mobility impairment was used i n a hospital-based study of 237 participants. A new modified version of the FOC was developed for use in a community-based study, by placing some obst acles next to walls instead of between parallel bars. These modifications e liminate the need for parallel bars or for extra personnel to interchange t he obstacles. We were concerned that the modifications could affect perform ance scores, because touching or holding onto the now eliminated parallel b ars could influence FOC scores under the original scoring system. To determ ine the effect of these modifications on FOC performance, we tested 36 volu nteers, (18 fallers [falls within last year] and 18 non-fallers), on the mo dified parts of the old and new versions of the FOG. Random testing order a nd inter-trial rests were used. For both the old and new FOC versions, we s ummed quality and task completion time scores from the six modified obstacl es (artificial turf, carpet, pine bark, sand, up ramp and down ramp) to cre ate scores for quality and time. Our hypothesis was that there would be no performance difference between the original and modified obstacle course. U sing a two-factor repeated-measures analysis of variance, we found no diffe rence in quality scores between the two FOC versions and no effect of an in teraction between faller status and the course versions. We did find that t he time was approximately 2 seconds longer for the new version; however, th e time increase was the same for fallers and non-fallers. These data show t hat fallers and non-fallers have comparable performance on both versions of the FOG; however, to compare the two obstacle courses we recommend an adju stment of 2 seconds in time scores. The obstacle course modifications will facilitate more extensive and efficient use of the obstacle course as a res earch tool to assess balance and mobility.