Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
To the best of the authors' knowledge, there are no existing studies that have evaluated the reliability and validity of the Figure-of-Eight Walk Test (F8WT) and the 360° Turn Test (360°TT) specifically in patients with total hip arthroplasty (PwTHA). The objective of this investigation was to assess the test-retest reliability and concurrent validity of the F8WT and 360°TT within this patient population.
This study involves a cross-sectional design with 54 unilateral PwTHA cases. Assessments to be conducted during the first session include the F8WT, 360°TT, Timed Up and Go (TUG), and Harris Hip Score (HHS). Subsequently, the F8WT and 360°TT will be retested one hour after the initial test. The reliability of these tests will be determined using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Concurrent validity will be assessed using the Pearson correlation coefficient. Additionally, the standard error of measurement (SEM95) and minimum detectable change (MDC95) will be calculated for the F8WT and 360°TT.
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Label | Type | Description | Intervention Names |
|---|---|---|---|
| Patients with Total Hip Arthroplasty | Participants who have undergone total hip arthroplasty and are enrolled to evaluate the reliability and validity of performance-based outcome measures. |
Not provided
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Figure of eight walk test (F8WT) | The F8WT was developed to evaluate parameters such as gait speed, balance, and directional turning capabilities. The protocol involves participants walking in a figure-eight pattern around two cones positioned 1.52 meters apart. Timing commences when participants initiate the task from the midpoint of the figure-eight trajectory and concludes upon their return to the starting location. Participants' walking directions and chosen speeds are adjusted according to individual preferences and comfort levels. | Baseline |
| Figure of eight walk test (F8WT) | The F8WT was developed to evaluate parameters such as gait speed, balance, and directional turning capabilities. The protocol involves participants walking in a figure-eight pattern around two cones positioned 1.52 meters apart. Timing commences when participants initiate the task from the midpoint of the figure-eight trajectory and concludes upon their return to the starting location. Participants' walking directions and chosen speeds are adjusted according to individual preferences and comfort levels. | 1 hour after baseline |
| 360° turn test (360°TT) | The 360°TT serves as a performance evaluation tool aimed at assessing dynamic balance capabilities. The protocol requires participants to execute a complete 360° turn in the shortest possible duration. Turn time and the number of steps employed during the maneuver are recorded using a stopwatch. A turn duration exceeding 2.1 seconds is indicative of a heightened risk of balance deterioration and potential functional impairment. | Baseline |
| 360° turn test (360°TT) | The 360°TT serves as a performance evaluation tool aimed at assessing dynamic balance capabilities. The protocol requires participants to execute a complete 360° turn in the shortest possible duration. Turn time and the number of steps employed during the maneuver are recorded using a stopwatch. A turn duration exceeding 2.1 seconds is indicative of a heightened risk of balance deterioration and potential functional impairment. |
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Timed up and go test (TUG) | Physical performance will be assessed using the TUG test, which is known for its reliability among PwTHA. The procedure involved standing up from a 45 cm chair, walking along a 3-metre path, turning around, and sitting back down on the chair. It will be used to examine concurrent validity against the F8WT and 360° Turn Test. | Baseline |
Not provided
Inclusion Criteria:
Exclusion Criteria:
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Participants who have undergone total hip arthroplasty and are enrolled to evaluate the reliability and validity of performance-based outcome measures.
Not provided
| Name | Affiliation | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Zeynep Yıldız Kızkın, Dr. | Artvin Coruh University | Principal Investigator |
| Facility | Status | City | State | ZIP | Country | Contacts |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Zeynep Yıldız Kızkın | Artvin | 08000 | Turkey (Türkiye) |
| PubMed Identifier | Type | Citation | Retractions |
|---|---|---|---|
| 29474993 | Background | Bahl JS, Nelson MJ, Taylor M, Solomon LB, Arnold JB, Thewlis D. Biomechanical changes and recovery of gait function after total hip arthroplasty for osteoarthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2018 Jul;26(7):847-863. doi: 10.1016/j.joca.2018.02.897. Epub 2018 Feb 21. | |
| 36786842 | Background |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| 1 hour after baseline |
| Harris hip score (HHS) | The HHS is a comprehensive, multidimensional instrument specifically designed to clinically assess patients with total hip arthroplasty (PwTHA). It consists of four distinct domains: pain, function, deformity, and range of motion (ROM). The total possible score is 100 points, with higher scores indicating better functional status. It will be used to examine concurrent validity against the F8WT and 360° Turn Test. | Baseline |
| Yarar HA, Narin S, Erduran M, Gurbanov I. The test-retest reliability and concurrent validity of 360 degrees turn test in patients with knee osteoarthritis. Somatosens Mot Res. 2024 Jun;41(2):90-96. doi: 10.1080/08990220.2023.2178402. Epub 2023 Feb 14. |
| 30241701 | Background | Barker KL, Batting M, Schlussel M, Newman M. The reliability and validity of the Figure of 8 Walk test in older people with knee replacement: does the setting have an impact? Physiotherapy. 2019 Mar;105(1):76-83. doi: 10.1016/j.physio.2018.07.003. Epub 2018 Jul 25. |
| 35772242 | Background | Tillman M, Molino J, Zaferiou AM. Frontal plane balance during pre-planned and late-cued 90 degree turns while walking. J Biomech. 2022 Aug;141:111206. doi: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2022.111206. Epub 2022 Jun 20. |
| 32454377 | Background | Almajid R, Goel R, Tucker C, Keshner E. Balance confidence and turning behavior as a measure of fall risk. Gait Posture. 2020 Jul;80:1-6. doi: 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2020.05.020. Epub 2020 May 20. |
| 39198348 | Background | Mokkink LB, Elsman EBM, Terwee CB. COSMIN guideline for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures version 2.0. Qual Life Res. 2024 Nov;33(11):2929-2939. doi: 10.1007/s11136-024-03761-6. Epub 2024 Aug 28. |
| 1202204 | Background | Folstein MF, Folstein SE, McHugh PR. "Mini-mental state". A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. J Psychiatr Res. 1975 Nov;12(3):189-98. doi: 10.1016/0022-3956(75)90026-6. No abstract available. |
| 35777291 | Background | Ozden F, Ozkeskin M, Ar E, Yuceyar N. Gait assessment in shaped pathways: The test-retest reliability and concurrent validity of the figure of eight test and L test in multiple sclerosis patients without mobility aids. Mult Scler Relat Disord. 2022 Sep;65:103998. doi: 10.1016/j.msard.2022.103998. Epub 2022 Jun 25. |
| 28647467 | Background | Dobson F, Hinman RS, Hall M, Marshall CJ, Sayer T, Anderson C, Newcomb N, Stratford PW, Bennell KL. Reliability and measurement error of the Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OARSI) recommended performance-based tests of physical function in people with hip and knee osteoarthritis. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2017 Nov;25(11):1792-1796. doi: 10.1016/j.joca.2017.06.006. Epub 2017 Jun 22. |
| 39434235 | Background | Ramadanov N, Voss M, Hable R, Hakam HT, Prill R, Salzmann M, Dimitrov D, Becker R. Postoperative Harris Hip Score Versus Harris Hip Score Difference in Hip Replacement: What to Report? Orthop Surg. 2025 Jan;17(1):3-21. doi: 10.1111/os.14272. Epub 2024 Oct 21. |
| 25264204 | Background | Celik D, Can C, Aslan Y, Ceylan HH, Bilsel K, Ozdincler AR. Translation, cross-cultural adaptation, and validation of the Turkish version of the Harris Hip Score. Hip Int. 2014 Sep-Oct;24(5):473-9. doi: 10.5301/hipint.5000146. Epub 2014 Sep 10. |
| 14552304 | Background | Pittenger DJ. Internet research: an opportunity to revisit classic ethical problems in behavioral research. Ethics Behav. 2003;13(1):45-60. doi: 10.1207/S15327019EB1301_08. |
| 18853222 | Background | Gandhi R, Tsvetkov D, Davey JR, Syed KA, Mahomed NN. Relationship between self-reported and performance-based tests in a hip and knee joint replacement population. Clin Rheumatol. 2009 Mar;28(3):253-7. doi: 10.1007/s10067-008-1021-y. Epub 2008 Oct 8. |