CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 18Cardiovascular and exercise physiologyPhysical Activity and HealthBalance, Gait, and Falls Prevention

The 6MWT: will different methods of instruction and measurement affect performance of healthy aging and older adults?

Southard, Veronica, Gallagher, Rosemary·2013·Journal of Geriatric Physical Therapy
DOI 10.1519/jpt.0b013e318264b5e8
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The Six-Minute Walk Test (6MWT) is commonly used to assess the fitness level of healthy adults and of older adults with disabilities. It can also be used as an intervention to increase walking endurance. However, its use may be limited in certain rehabilitation settings due to space requirements. If it can be shown that the measured linear distance walked in the 6-minute walk is comparable to the distance walked as measured by a pedometer, the test may be more widely used in a variety of rehabilitation settings. In addition, questions exist as to whether the method of instruction ("walk as far as you can" vs "walk as fast as you can") can impact the rate of perceived exertion of the person performing the test. The purposes of this study were to assess for differences in the measured linear distance and from the gender-based predicted value when compared to the pedometer measurement. In addition, we assessed the difference, if any, in the rate of perceived exertion (RPE) using the 2 different methods of administration. Furthermore, the distance in meters walked using the 2 different methods of instruction was compared; likewise, comparisons were made of these values to predicted values. METHODS: A group of 26 older adults participated in this descriptive study. After a practice trial, each person completed 2 linear trials using different methods of instruction, ("walk as fast as you can" or "walk as far as you can") of the 6MWT while wearing a DIGI-WALKER SW-651 pedometer. Vital signs were taken before and after each trial. Linear distance, pedometer distance, and numeric value RPE were recorded. RESULTS: Paired t tests demonstrated no gender differences. An intraclass correlation coefficient (2,1) of 0.822 was calculated between all dependent variables. A repeated measures MANOVA was conducted to assess for differences between all variables resulting in no differences (F = 1.98; P = .13). Pairwise comparisons were also insignificant for the distance measurements except predicted value and pedometer fast P = .024. Paired t tests also demonstrated differences between RPE between trials (t = 2.15; P = .041). CONCLUSION: There was good agreement between these distance measures for the 6MWT. The use of a pedometer was found to be a valid measure of walking distance during the 6MWT. It was also found that the method of instruction made no differences in walking distance. Although the change was minimal on the Borg scale, the RPE was found to be significantly different between far and fast trials in healthy adults. From this study, it appears that that either mode of instruction is valid in healthy community-dwelling populations. Future studies should include populations with impairments.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1519/jpt.0b013e318264b5e8

Cites

23 of 23 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Southard, V., & Gallagher, R.
Affiliations
New York Institute of Technology (US)
Corresponding author
Southard, Veronica
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Geriatric Physical Therapy
Publisher
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
Published
2013-04
Volume
36
Issue
2
Pages
68-73
ISSN
1539-8412 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1519/jpt.0b013e318264b5e8
OpenAlex
W1965302673
Cited by
18
References
23
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 4 · 2017: 1 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 1
FWCI
2.33
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Geriatric Physical Therapy (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Complementary and alternative medicine › Cardiovascular and exercise physiology
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Physical Activity and Health
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation › Balance, Gait, and Falls Prevention
Keywords
6-minute walk test, pedometers, walking endurance, rating of perceived exertion, older adults, test validity, Borg scale, gait rehabilitation, gender differences, test-retest reliability
MeSH terms
Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Aging, Exercise Test, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Walking

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