Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 664

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Reliability of Measurements Obtained With the Timed “Up & Go” Test in People With Parkinson Disease

Morris, Susan, Morris, Meg E, Iansek, Robert·2001·Physical Therapy

Abstract

Background and Purpose. The Timed “Up & Go” Test (TUG) is used to measure the ability of patients to perform sequential locomotor tasks that incorporate walking and turning. This study investigated the retest reliability, interrater reliability, and sensitivity of TUG scores in detecting changes in mobility in subjects with idiopathic Parkinson disease (PD). Subjects. The performance of 12 people with PD was compared with that of 12 age-matched comparison subjects without PD. Methods. The subjects with PD completed 5 trials of the TUG after withdrawal of levodopa for 12 hours (“off” phase of the medication cycle) as well as an additional 5 trials 1 hour after levodopa was administered (“on” phase of the medication cycle). They were scored on the Modified Webster Scale at both sessions. The comparison subjects also performed 5 TUG trials. All trials were videotaped and timed by 2 experienced raters. The videotape was later rated by 3 experienced clinicians and 3 inexperienced clinicians. Results. For the subjects with PD, within-session performance was highly consistent, with correlations (r) ranging from .80 to .98 for the “off” phase and from .73 to .99 for the “on” phase. The performance of the comparison subjects across the 5 trials was also highly consistent (r=.90–.97). Comparisons showed differences between trials 1 and 2 on the TUG for both groups. Removal of data for trial 1 (the practice trial) further enhanced retest reliability. There was close agreement in TUG scores among raters despite different levels of experience (intraclass correlation coefficient [3,1]=.87–.99). Mean TUG scores were different between the “on” and “off” phases of the levodopa cycle and between subjects with PD and comparison subjects during the “on” phase. Conclusion and Discussion. Retest reliability and interrater reliability of the TUG measurements were high, and the measurements reflected changes in performance according to levodopa use. The TUG can also be used to detect differences in performance between people with PD and elderly people without PD.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/ptj/81.2.810

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 664

Metadata

Authors
Morris, S., Morris, M. E., & Iansek, R.
Venue
Physical Therapy
Published
2001-02-01
Volume
81
Issue
2
Pages
810-818
ISSN
  • 0031-9023 (ISSN-L)
  • 1538-6724
OpenAlex
W2095683814
Cited by
664
References
1
FWCI
15.09
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Reliability of Measurements Obtained With the Timed “Up & Go” Test in People With Parkinson Disease. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/ptj/81.2.810
The paper
Morris, S., Morris, M. E., & Iansek, R. (2001). Reliability of Measurements Obtained With the Timed “Up & Go” Test in People With Parkinson Disease. Physical Therapy. https://doi.org/10.1093/ptj/81.2.810

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.