Keep it simple: comparing functional assessments in individuals with Down syndrome.

Background: A number of assessments exist that evaluate function in ambulatory adults. However, these assessments take for granted the cognitive abilities required for the participant to understand what is being asked of them in order to demonstrate their functional abilities. It has been shown that...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Publicado en:Journal of Intellectual Disability Research Vol. 66; no. 11; pp. 893 - 900
Autores principales: Stone, W. J., Buoncristiani, N. A., Malone, G. T.
Formato: research tables/charts Journal Article
Publicado: Wiley-Blackwell Nov2022
Acceso en línea:Ver este registro en EBSCOhost
fields @attributes:
  recordID: 1
pdfLink:
plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ccm&AN=159630440&site=ehost-live
header:
  @attributes:
    shortDbName: ccm
    uiTerm: 159630440
    longDbName: CINAHL Complete
    uiTag: AN
  controlInfo:
    bkinfo:
    dissinfo:
    jinfo:
      jid:
        09642633
        EUL
      jtl: Journal of Intellectual Disability Research
      issn: 09642633
      maglogo: Y
    pubinfo:
      dt: Nov2022
      vid: 66
      iid: 11
      pid: 480
      pub: Wiley-Blackwell
      place: Malden, Massachusetts
    artinfo:
      ui:
        159630440
        159088416
        159630440
        159630440
        10.1111/jir.12980
        159630440
      ppf: 893
      ppct: 7
      formats:
        fmt:
          – @attributes:
              type: T
          – @attributes:
              type: C
          – @attributes:
              type: P
      tig:
        atl: Keep it simple: comparing functional assessments in individuals with Down syndrome.
      aug:
        au:
          Stone, W. J.
          Buoncristiani, N. A.
          Malone, G. T.
        affil: School of Kinesiology, Recreation, and Sport, Western Kentucky University, Bowling Green KY, , USA
      sug:
        subj:
          Down Syndrome Physiopathology
          Functional Assessment
          Task Performance and Analysis
          Gait Analysis
          Clinical Assessment Tools
          Human
          Adult
          Bivariate Statistics
          Pearson's Correlation Coefficient
          Descriptive Statistics
          Scales
          Cognition
          Outcome Assessment
          Adult: 19-44 years
      ab: Background: A number of assessments exist that evaluate function in ambulatory adults. However, these assessments take for granted the cognitive abilities required for the participant to understand what is being asked of them in order to demonstrate their functional abilities. It has been shown that individuals with Down syndrome (DS) demonstrate lower functional levels when asked to perform additional tasks while walking. Therefore, measurements of function may not be reflective of actual function if the assessment requires additional tasks in those with DS. It is for these reasons the current investigation sought to evaluate four common functional assessments, two with [modified Berg balance test (mBERG) and Functional Gait Assessment (FGA)] and two without [Timed Up and Go (TUG) and Established Populations for Epidemiologic Study in the Elderly (EPESE)] complex tasks. Methods: Adults with DS (n = 19) completed four functional assessments, which were later compared using bivariate Pearson correlation coefficients. Results: There were large associations between simple assessments (TUG–EPESE: r = −0.525, P = 0.021) and complex assessments (FGA–mBERG: r = 0.612, P = 0.005), respectively. The TUG also inversely correlated with the FGA (r = −0.476, P = 0.039), and the EPESE had a large association with mBERG (r = 0.508, P = 0.027). Conclusions: The mBERG may be the best test to replicate real‐world scenarios through its tasks, although it may also be confounded by the cognitive load required to perform the movements as asked. The TUG and EPESE may be more appropriate as mobility assessments because they require very little cognitive attention when completing the tasks. True assessments of mobility ought to err on the side of simple so to not confuse the outcomes with executive functionality.
      pubtype: Academic Journal
      doctype:
        research
        tables/charts
        Journal Article
      ougenre: Article
    language: English
    refInfo:
    holdings:
      @attributes:
        islocal: N