Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 572

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 56 of the 56 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Properties of the ‘Timed Up and Go’ Test: More than Meets the Eye

Open access
Herman, Talia, Giladi, Nir, Hausdorff, Jeffrey M.·2011·Gerontology

Abstract

Background: The ‘timed up and go’ test (TUG) is a simple, quick and widely used clinical performance-based measure of lower extremity function, mobility and fall risk. We speculated that its properties may be different from other performance-based tests and assessed whether cognitive function may contribute to the differences among these tests in a cohort of healthy older adults. Objective: To evaluate psychometric properties of the TUG in healthy older adults in comparison to the Berg balance test (BBT) and the Dynamic Gait Index (DGI). Methods: The TUG, DGI and BBT were assessed in 265 healthy older adults (76.4 ± 4.3 years; 58.3% women) who participated in a 3-year prospective study. The Mini-Mental State Examination, digit span and verbal fluency measured cognitive function. The one-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov test evaluated deviations from a normal distribution and Pearson’s correlation coefficients quantified associations. Results: The mean scores of the BBT, DGI and TUG were: 54.0 ± 2.4, 22.8 ± 1.5, 9.5 ± 1.7 s, respectively. The BBT and the DGI were not normally distributed (p < 0.001), but the TUG was (p = 0.713). The TUG times were mildly associated (p < 0.01) with digit span and verbal fluency and were related to future falls, while the BBT and the DGI were not. Conclusions: The TUG appears to be an appropriate tool for clinical assessment of functional mobility even in healthy older adults. It does not suffer from ceiling effect limitations, is normally distributed and is apparently related to executive function. The BBT and the DGI do not share these beneficial properties. Perhaps the transferring and turning components of the TUG help to convert this relatively simple motor task into a more complex measure that also depends on cognitive resources.

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 · 10.1159/000314963

Cites

56 of 56 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 56 references

Cited by

See all 572

Metadata

Authors
Herman, T., Giladi, N., & Hausdorff, J. M.
Venue
Gerontology
Publisher
S. Karger AG
Published
2010-05-20
Volume
57
Issue
3
Pages
203-210
ISSN
  • 0304-324X (ISSN-L)
  • 1423-0003
OpenAlex
W2157956359
Cited by
572
References
56
FWCI
32.41
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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: Properties of the ‘Timed Up and Go’ Test: More than Meets the Eye. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1159/000314963
The paper
Herman, T., Giladi, N., & Hausdorff, J. M. (2011). Properties of the ‘Timed Up and Go’ Test: More than Meets the Eye. Gerontology. https://doi.org/10.1159/000314963

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.