IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v17y2020i4p1450-d324445.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Reliability of 30-s Chair Stand Test with and without Cognitive Task in People with Type-2 Diabetes Mellitus

Author

Listed:
  • Sabina Barrios-Fernández

    (Faculty of Nursing and Occupational Therapy, University of Extremadura, 10003 Cáceres, Spain)

  • Jorge Pérez-Gómez

    (Faculty of Sport Sciences, University of Extremadura, 10003 Cáceres, Spain)

  • María del Carmen Galán-Arroyo

    (Exercise Looks after You Program (ELAY), 10003 Cáceres, Spain)

  • Jairo Señorán-Rivera

    (Exercise Looks after You Program (ELAY), 10003 Cáceres, Spain)

  • Rubén Martín-Carmona

    (Exercise Looks after You Program (ELAY), 10003 Cáceres, Spain)

  • María Mendoza-Muñoz

    (Faculty of Sport Sciences, University of Extremadura, 10003 Cáceres, Spain)

  • Miguel Ángel García-Gordillo

    (Facultad de Administración y Negocios, Universidad Autónoma de Chile, sede Talca 3467987, Chile)

  • Francisco Javier Domínguez-Muñoz

    (Faculty of Sport Sciences, University of Extremadura, 10003 Cáceres, Spain
    Exercise Looks after You Program (ELAY), 10003 Cáceres, Spain)

  • José Carmelo Adsuar

    (Faculty of Sport Sciences, University of Extremadura, 10003 Cáceres, Spain)

Abstract

Background: Reliability refers to the precision of an assessment, so it is a critical topic to take the right decisions related to health management. People usually perform several tasks at the same time in their daily life. The aim of this study was to examine the reliability of the 30-s chair stand test in people with type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM) with test–retest, with and without dual-task (motor + cognitive task). Methods: Twenty-six subjects with T2DM and 30 subjects without T2DM performed the 30-s Chair Stand Test (30sCST) in which they must sit and stand as many times as possible in 30 s. They performed the test in the usual way (30sCST) and also with an additional cognitive task (30sCST-DT). A retest was conducted 7–14 days later. Results: Relative reliability was excellent in both groups (intraclass correlation coefficient > 0.9). In 30sCST-DT, relative reliability was high in the T2DM group (intraclass correlation coefficient > 0.7) and excellent in subjects without T2DM (intraclass correlation coefficient > 0.9). Conclusions: The 30sCST and the 30sCST-DT tests are reliable tools for people with T2DM to measure changes after an intervention. The smallest real difference was 15% and 20% upper in the T2DM group in the 30sCST and 30sCST-DT tests, respectively.

Suggested Citation

  • Sabina Barrios-Fernández & Jorge Pérez-Gómez & María del Carmen Galán-Arroyo & Jairo Señorán-Rivera & Rubén Martín-Carmona & María Mendoza-Muñoz & Miguel Ángel García-Gordillo & Francisco Javier Domín, 2020. "Reliability of 30-s Chair Stand Test with and without Cognitive Task in People with Type-2 Diabetes Mellitus," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(4), pages 1-9, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:4:p:1450-:d:324445
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/4/1450/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/4/1450/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Juan Pedro Martín-Martínez & Daniel Collado-Mateo & Francisco Javier Domínguez-Muñoz & Santos Villafaina & Narcís Gusi & Jorge Pérez-Gómez, 2019. "Reliability of the 30 s Chair Stand Test in Women with Fibromyalgia," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(13), pages 1-10, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Juan Luis Leon-Llamas & Santos Villafaina & Alvaro Murillo-Garcia & Daniel Collado-Mateo & Francisco Javier Domínguez-Muñoz & Jesús Sánchez-Gómez & Narcis Gusi, 2019. "Strength Assessment Under Dual Task Conditions in Women with Fibromyalgia: A Test–Retest Reliability Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(24), pages 1-10, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:4:p:1450-:d:324445. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.