Search

Introduction In clinical practice, observational scales are the most common approach used to assess gait pattern in people with neurological disorders. The Gait Assessment and Intervention Tool (GAIT) is an observational gait scale, and it has proved to be the most comprehensive, homogeneous, and objective of all the observational gait scales studied in people with neurological conditions. Objective To study the construct validity of the GAIT in people with multiple sclerosis (MS). Design An observational study was conducted. Setting Multiple Sclerosis Foundation in Madrid (Spain). Patients Thirty-five patients with MS were assessed. Main outcome measure(s) GAIT construct validity was assessed using the following scales: Rivermead Visual Gait Assessment (RVGA), Tinetti Gait Scale (TGS), 10-Meter Walking Test (10MWT), Timed Up&Go (TUG), Hauser Ambulatory Index (HAI), Multiple Sclerosis Walking Scale-12 (MSWS-12), Functional Gait Assessment (FGA), Modified Ashworth Scale (MAS), and Rivermead Mobility Index (RMI). Results A total of 35 subjects with MS were assessed. The correlations between the GAIT and the RVGA were excellent (r > .90) and moderate with TGS (values between -.62 and -.59). Correlations with HAI, FGA, MSWS-12, and RMI were moderate (with values between .57 and .67). Correlations were lower for the velocity scales TUG and MAS. Conclusions The construct validity of the GAIT is high, as a measure of gait coordination in people with MS. Specifically, there was excellent correlation with the RVGA. There was a moderate correlation for the GAIT with measures of functional mobility, but a lesser correlation of the GAIT with measures restricted to temporal gait characteristics (speed measures) or measurements of impairments underlying gait patterns such as balance or muscle tone.

Background The Gait Assessment and Intervention Tool (G.A.I.T.) has been shown to be a comprehensive and objectively scored tool to assess gait in people with neurologic disease. However, there is only an English version of the scale, the language in which it was developed. Objective To carry out a cross-cultural adaptation of the Gait Assessment and Intervention Tool (G.A.I.T.) scale for its use in the Spanish-speaking population, and to study the content validity of the Spanish version. Design A cross-cultural adaptation and validation study of the G.A.I.T. Setting University Laboratory (Alcorcon, Madrid, Spain). Participants Not applicable. Methods or interventions Cross-cultural adaptation of a scale. Main outcome measurements The Spanish version of the G.A.I.T. was obtained using the double-translation and back-translation method, and a subsequent Expert Committee revision. The Expert Committee studied the content validity of the Spanish G.A.I.T. using the content validity index (CVI). Results The final version of the G.A.I.T. in Spanish was obtained after the cross-cultural process. The CVI was found to be excellent for the overall G.A.I.T. (0.94), and excellent for 87% of its 31 items (≥0.78). CVI was good for 10% of the items (arm swing and toes, CVI ≥0.72). Although 3% of items (shoulder and elbow position) showed CVI = 0.28, these items were retained for completeness. Conclusions The Spanish version of the G.A.I.T. was developed through a cross-cultural adaptation process from its original version in English, and according to an Expert Committee it has an excellent overall content validity.

Background Currently, knowledge is lacking about whether subjects with traumatic unilateral transtibial amputation (UTA) have a compromised ability to voluntarily move their center of gravity (COG) to positions within the limits of stability. Objective To analyze the ability to voluntarily move the COG to positions within the limits of stability in a sample of subjects with traumatic UTA. Design Observational, case-control study. Setting University department. Participants Ten men with traumatic UTA and 10 control subjects without amputation. Main Outcome Measures Computerized dynamic posturography SMART EquiTEST System version 8.0 was used for measuring stability limits in both groups. The Limits of Stability test was used to assess the participants' ability to voluntarily sway to various locations in space (8 predetermined target positions). Results End point excursion achieved statistically significant differences in the prosthetic ( P = .02) and backward ( P = .03) directions in the subjects with UTA. A statistically significant decrease was observed in the maximum excursion to backward direction ( P = .05) in the subjects with UTA. Directional control only reached statistically significant differences in the prosthetic backward direction ( P = .05) compared with the control group. Movement velocity was statistically significantly lower in the subjects with UTA toward prosthetic ( P = .03), backward ( P = .05), sound ( P = .01), and sound forward ( P = .03) directions in relation to the control group. Conclusions Persons with traumatic UTA have a reduced ability to move their COG within stability limits (restricted displacement, inadequate directional control, and reduced velocity). These findings should be considered when developing rehabilitation programs for these persons.