Five Times Sit to Stand Test

Last Updated

June 20, 2013

Purpose

The Five Times Sit to Stand Test measures one aspect of transfer skill. The test provides a method to quantify functional lower extremity strength and/or identify movement strategies a patient uses to complete transitional movements.

Link to Instrument

Instrument Details

Acronym FTSTS or 5xSTS

Area of Assessment

Functional Mobility
Strength

Assessment Type

Performance Measure

Administration Mode

Paper & Pencil

Cost

Free

Diagnosis/Conditions

Cerebral Palsy
Parkinson's Disease & Movement Disorders
Stroke Recovery
Vestibular Disorders

Vestibular Disorders

Stroke

Pulmonary Diseases

Parkinson's Disease

Older Adults and Geriatric Care

Non-Specific Patient Population

Multiple Sclerosis

Joint Pain and Fractures

Cerebral Palsy

Back Pain

Arthritis

The chair should be free-standing
Test Administration:
1) Patient sits with arms folded across chest and with their back against the chair. With patients who have had a stroke, it is permissible to have the impaired arm at the side or in a sling
2) Use a standard chair with arms (keep testing chair consistent for each retest). Chair heights recorded in literature vary, generally 43-45 cm
3) Ensure that the chair is not secured (i.e. against the wall or mat)
4) Patient Instructions: "I want you to stand up and sit down 5 times as quickly as you can when I say 'Go'."
5) Timing begins at "Go" and ends when the buttocks touches the chair after the 5th repetition.
6) Provide one practice trial before measurements are recorded.
7) Inability to complete five repetitions without assistance or use of upper extremity support indicates failure of test. (Any modifications should be documented)
8) Document speed and assist level (CGA, supervision, Mod I, or I) in the PT Standing Balance Section
Instruct patient to stand fully between repetitions of the test and not to touch the back of the chair during each repetition.
It is OK if the patient does touch the back of the chair, but it is not recommended.
Try NOT to talk to the patient during the test (may decrease patient’s speed).
If you are concerned that the patient may fatigue with a practice trial, it is OK to demonstrate to the patient and have the patient do two repetitions to ensure they understand the instructions.
Subjects are allowed to place their feet comfortably under them during testing.

Number of Items

Standard height chair (43-45 cm, 17-18 inches) with a backrest
Stopwatch

Less than 5 minutes

Depends on the number of trials

Required Training

No Training

Adult

18 - 64

years

Elderly Adult

65 +

years

Instrument Reviewers

Initially reviewed by Susan Deems-Dluhy, PT, NCS in 2010; Updated with references from the Parkinson's Disease and Cerebral Palsy populations by Yamit Saadia-Redleaf, SPT and Julian Scheff, SPT in 11/2012; Updated by Alicia Esposito, PT, NCS and the PD EDGE task force of the Neurology Section of the APTA in 2013.Reviewed and updated by Karen Lambert, PT, MPT, NCS and Linda Horn, PT, DscPT, MHS, NCS and the Vestibular EDGE task force of the Neurology Section of the APTA 6/2013.

Body Part

Lower Extremity

ICF Domain

Activity

Measurement Domain

Motor

Professional Association Recommendation

Recommendations for use of the instrument from the Neurology Section of the American Physical Therapy Association’s Multiple Sclerosis Taskforce (MSEDGE), Parkinson’s Taskforce (PD EDGE), Spinal Cord Injury Taskforce (PD EDGE), Stroke Taskforce (StrokEDGE), Traumatic Brain Injury Taskforce (TBI EDGE), and Vestibular Taskforce (Vestibular EDGE) are listed below. These recommendations were developed by a panel of research and clinical experts using a modified Delphi process.

For detailed information about how recommendations were made, please visit: http://www.neuropt.org/go/healthcare-professionals/neurology-section-outcome-measures-recommendations

*Abbreviations:*
HR	Highly Recommend
R	Recommend
*LS / UR*	Reasonable to use, but limited study in target group / Unable to Recommend
NR	Not Recommended

Recommendations for use based on acuity level of the patient:

	Acute (CVA < 2 months post) (SCI < 1 month post) (Vestibular < 6 weeks post)	Subacute (CVA 2 to 6 months) (SCI 3 to 6 months)	Chronic (> 6 months) (Vestibular > 6 weeks weeks post)
SCI EDGE
StrokEDGE	R	R	R
Vestibular EDGE	LS	LS	LS

Recommendations Based on Parkinson Disease Hoehn and Yahr stage:

	I	II	III	IV	V
PD EDGE	HR	HR	HR	HR	NR

Recommendations based on level of care in which the assessment is taken:

Acute Care

Inpatient Rehabilitation

Skilled Nursing Facility

Outpatient

Rehabilitation

Home Health

MS EDGE

StrokEDGE

Recommendations based on EDSS Classification:

	EDSS 0.0 – 3.5	EDSS 4.0 – 5.5	EDSS 6.0 – 7.5	EDSS 8.0 – 9.5
MS EDGE	UR	UR	UR	NR

Recommendations based on vestibular diagnosis

	Peripheral	Central	Benign Paroxysmal Positional Vertigo (BPPV)	Other
Vestibular EDGE	LS	LS	LS	LS

Recommendations for entry-level physical therapy education and use in research:

	Students should learn to administer this tool? (Y/N)	Students should be exposed to tool? (Y/N)	Appropriate for use in intervention research studies? (Y/N)	Is additional research warranted for this tool (Y/N)
MS EDGE	No	No	No	Yes
PD EDGE	Yes	Yes	Yes	Not reported
StrokEDGE	No	Yes	Yes	Not reported
Vestibular EDGE	Yes	Yes	No	Yes

Considerations

The Five Times Sit to Stand Test (FTSST) is a quick and easy to administer test of an individuals's ability to transition between sitting and standing five times in a row.
Individuals with a balance disorder performed the FTSST slower than controls (Whitney, 2005) and was more sensitive in a younger (< 60 years old) population.
The FTSST is responsive to change in balance over time (Merretta, 2006)
Both DGI and ABC were more sensitive than the FTSST to detect individuals with balance disorders.
Many variations exist:
- Ten Times Stand Test
- Single leg sit-to-stand test
- 1-minute sit-to-stand test 1
- 0 Second Sit to Stand Test
- Six Times Sit to Stand Test
- 30 second sit to stand
Measurements of time are more precise (5x sit to stand; 10x sit to stand) then count of repetitions (30 second sit to stand; 10 second sit to stand). Individuals who are weak however may not be able to complete the requisite number of repetitions and consequently counting the number of repetitions in a pre set amount of time may be preferable for certain patient populations.

Do you see an error or have a suggestion for this instrument? Please email us!

Standard Error of Measurement (SEM)

Children with Cerebral Palsy:

(Wang et al, 2011; n = 170 children, 108 with spastic diplegia and 62 with typical development, 22 of the children with spastic diplegia were tested twice within one week for test-retest reliability; mean age = 8.1 (1.8) for children with spastic diplegia and 8.7 (1.6) for children with typical development)

SEM = 0.02 (using the average of three trials)
SEM = 0.04 (using the first trial only)

Minimal Detectable Change (MDC)

Children with Cerebral Palsy:

(Wang et al, 2011, Children with Cerebral Palsy)

MDC = 0.06 (using the average of three trials)
MDC = 0.11 (using the first trial only)

Test/Retest Reliability

Children with Cerebral Palsy:

(Wang et al, 2011, Children with Cerebral Palsy)

Excellent test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.99) using the average of 3 trials
Excellent test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.97) using the first trial only

(Wang et al, 2011, Children with Cerebral Palsy)

Excellent intra-session reliability (ICC = 0.95)

Construct Validity

Children with Cerebral Palsy:

(Wang et al, 2011, Children with Cerebral Palsy)

Convergent Validity of the Five-Repetition Sit-to-Stand Test and Mean Values of all Criterion Tests in Children with Spastic Diplegia
	n	mean(SD)	r (rho)
1-RM of LSTS*	91	0.47(0.21)	0.59***
Isometric Muscle Strength
Hip Flexors*	18	0.27(0.08)	0.78***
Hip Extensors*	18	0.23(0.13)	0.68**
Hip Abductors*	18	0.27(0.09)	0.76***
Hip Adductors*	18	0.29(0.08)	0.30
Knee Flexors*	40	0.18(0.08)	0.50***
Knee Extensors*	40	0.31(0.11)	0.45**
Ankle Dorsiflexors*	18	0.09(0.06)	0.57**
Ankle Plantar Flexors*	18	0.46(0.12)	0.68**
Trunk Extensors (sec)	41	33.7(37.7)	(0.43)**
Functional Measures
GMFM-D (%)	64	81.8(13.1)	(0.65)***
GMFM-E (%)	64	68.9(21.1)	(0.75)***
Walking Speed (m/min)	45	57.2(15.0)	0.41**
PCI (beats/m)	45	1.0(0.5)	(-0.40)**
P < 0.05; P < 0.001; correlation coefficients by Pearson (r) or Spearman (rho)* correlation analysis; * values were normalized by body weight. 1-RM, 1-repetition maximum; GMFM, Gross Motor Functino Measure; LSTS, loaded sit-to-stand test; PCI, physiological cost index.

Standard Error of Measurement (SEM)

Parkinson's Disease:

(Paul et al, 2012; n = 31; age (years) = 65.9 (8.8), range = 44 - 87; PD duration (years) = 7.1 (4.6), range = 1 - 19; Mini Mental State Examination Score (0 - 30) = 29.6 (0.9), range = 27 - 30; "ON" MDS-UPDRS motor score (0 - 132) = 25.0 (10.4), range = 8 - 47; H and Y stage (0 - 5) = 2.0 (0.8), range = 1 - 4; dyskinesia (>/ = 1 of item 4.1 of the MDS-UPDRS): n = 15; disabling dyskinesia (> 1 of item 4.3 of the MDS-UPDRS: n = 6; motor fluctuations (> 1 of item 4.3 of the MDS-UPDRS: n = 16)

SEM = 0.6

Cut-Off Scores

Parkinson's Disease:

(Duncan et al, 2011; n = 80; 59% men; mean age = 67 (9.0) years; mean Hoehn & Yahr Stage = 2.4 (0.6), (range 1 – 4); Individuals in each H & Y stage (I = 2, II = 2, III = 2 and IV = 1) were unable to perform FTSTS because they were unable to arise from a chair without using the upper extremities so these participants were given a score of 60 seconds, which was approximately 1 SD higher than the slowest performance time among those who were able to perform the task)

> 16.0 seconds indicates the risk of falls
Cut off score of 16 second discriminates fallers from non-fallers

Normative Data

Parkinson's Disease:

(Duncan et al, 2011, Parkinson's Disease)

Correlation Coefficients Between FTSTS Test and All Variables
	Variable	Correlation	P
Demographics	Age	0.37	0.001
	BMI	-0.10	0.40
Questionnaires	PASE	-0.38	0.001
	PDQ-Mobility	0.58	<0.001
	FOGQ	0.44	<0.001
	PDQ-SI	0.38	0.001
	ABC	-0.54	<0.001
Mobility Measures	Mini-BEST	-0.71	< 0.001
	Quadriceps MVIC	-0.33	0.003
	9HPT	0.55	<0.001
	6MWT	-0.60	<0.001
NOTE. Pearson correlations were used for all measures. Abbreviations: BMI, body mass index; MVIC, maximal voluntary isometric contraction.

(Paul et al, 2012)Mean time = 20.25 seconds (14.12)

Mean score at baseline = 9.67 (1.79), range = 5.9 - 13.5
Mean score at retest = 9.48 (2.04), range = 6 - 15.2

Test/Retest Reliability

Parkinson's Disease:

(Duncan et al, 2011)

Excellent test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.76)

(Paul et al, 2012)

Excellent test retest reliability (ICC = 0.91 (0.82 - 0.96))

Interrater/Intrarater Reliability

Parkinson's Disease:

(Duncan et al, 2011, Parkinson’s Disease)

Excellent interrater reliability (ICC = 0.99)

Criterion Validity (Predictive/Concurrent)

Parkinson's Disease:

(Duncan et al, 2011, Parkinson’s Disease)

Predictors of FTSTS Test Performance in PD
Regression Analyses:
Model	Cumulative R²	β	P
Model 1
Mini-BEST	0.500	-0.58	< 0.001
9HPT	0.528	0.21	0.03
Model 2
Mini-BEST	0.506	-0.69	<0.001
9HPT	0.535	0.22	0.05
PDQ-SI	0.545	-0.12	0.34
Quadriceps MVIC	0.548	-0.06	0.52
PASE	0.552	0.06	0.58
FOGQ	0.553	-0.06	0.61
6MWT	0.554	-0.06	0.73
Age	0.555	-0.03	0.77
ABC	0.555	0.00	0.99
Abbreviation: MVIC, maximal voluntary isometric contraction. Cumulative R^{2 =}total R²when the variable in question plus all preceding variables have been entered into the model. β = standardized regression coefficients.

Adequate correlation with Physical Activity Scale for the Elderly (PASE), (r = -0.38 (p = 0.001))
Adequate correlation with Parkinson's Disease Questionnaire-mobility (PDQ-mobility), (r = 0.58 (p < 0.001))
Adequate correlation with the Freezing of Gait Questionnaire (FOGQ), (r = 0.44 (p < 0.001))
Adequate correlation with Parkinson's Disease Questionnaire-summary index (PDQ-SI), (r = 0.38 (p = 0.001))
Adequate correlation with the Activities-Specific and Balance Confidence Scale (ABC), (r = 0.54 (p < 0.001)
Excellent correlation with the Mini-Balance Evaluation Systems Test (Mini-BESTest), (r = 0.71 (p < 0.001))
Adequate correlation with quadriceps maximal voluntary isometric contraction (MVIC), (r = -0.33 (p = 0.003))
Adequate correlation with the 9 Hole Peg Test (9 HPT), (r = 0.55 (p < 0.001))
Adequate correlation with the 6 Minute Walk Test (6 MWT), (r = 0.60 (p < 0.001))
Adequate predictive validity: Cut off score of 16 seconds discriminated fallers and nonfallers (area under the curve = 0.77; sensitivity = 0.75; specificity = 0.68)

Floor/Ceiling Effects

Parkinson's Disease:

(Duncan et al, 2011)

Individuals in each H & Y stage (I = 2, II = 2, III = 2 and IV = 1) were unable to perform FTSTS because they were unable to arise from a chair without using the upper extremities

Minimally Clinically Important Difference (MCID)

Vestibular Disorders:

(Meretta, 2006; n = 117 patients, 45 men, 72 women with peripheral, central or mixed vestibular dysfunction; mean age = 62.7 years, Vestibular Disorders)

MCID = Greater than or equal to 2.3 seconds

Cut-Off Scores

Balance or Vestibular Disorders:

(Whitney et al, 2005; n = 81 controls (mean age younger = 41 (11) years and older = 73 (5) years) and n = 93 with balance disorders (mean age younger = 48 (10) years and older = 75 (7) years)

To identify balance dysfunction
- Entire sample: 13 sec
- Younger (< 60 years): 10 sec
- Older (> 60 years): 14.2 sec

(Buatois, 2008; n = 2,735 consecutive voluntary subjects aged 65 and older in apparently good state of health consulting for a medical examination, Vestibular Disorders in the Elderly)

Cutoff score of 15 sec was predictive of fallers in elderly

Normative Data

Vestibular Patients:

(Whitney, 2005; n = 32 younger subjects without balance disorders, 47 younger subjects with balance disorders, 49 older subjects without balance disorders and 46 subjects with balance disorders; mean age = 41 (11) for younger subjects without balance disorders, 48 (10) for younger subjects with balance disorders, 75 (5) for older subjects without balance disorders and 75 (7) for older subjects with balance disorders, Vestibular Patients)

Descriptive Data for FTSST

Variable	Younger control subjects (n = 32)	Younger subjects with balance dysfunction (n = 47)	Older control subjects(n = 49)	Older subjects with balance dysfunction (n = 46)
Age (y)
Mean	41	48	73	75
SD	11	10	5	7
Range	23-57	14-59	63-84	61-90
Sex
Men	16	15	23	18
Women	16	32	26	28
FTTS Score
Mean	8.2	15.3	13.4	16.4
SD	1.7	7.6	2.8	4.4
Range	4.9-12.7	6.4-56.6	7.5-19.6	9.6-27.5
95% CI	7.5-8.8	13.1-17.6	12.5-14.1	15.1-17.7

Criterion Validity (Predictive/Concurrent)

Balance/vestibular disorders:

(Whitney, 2005, Balance/Vestibular Disorders)

Excellent correlation with ABC (rho = -0.68)
Adequate correlation with DGI (rho = -0.58)

(Meretta, 2006; n = 117 patients (45 men, 72 women with peripheral, central or mixed vestibular dysfunction; mean age = 62.7 years, Balance/Vestibular Disorders)

Adequate correlation with TUG (r = 0.59)
Adequate correlation with Gait speed (r = -0.53)

Construct Validity

Vestibular Disorders:

(Whitney, 2005, Vestibular Patients)

FTSST correctly identified 65% of patients with balance disorders (correctly identified 81% of individuals with balance disorders in younger patients (< 60 years old)).
Both ABC (80%) and DGI (78%) were better at identifying individuals with balance disorders.

Responsiveness

Vestibular Disorders:

(Meretta, 2006; n = 117 patients; 45 men, 72 women with peripheral, central or mixed vestibular dysfunction; mean age = 62.7 years, Vestibular Disorders)

Moderate responsiveness in patients with vestibular disorders (0.58) and 2.3 sec. change predicted 49% of change on DHI

(Whitney, 2005, Vestibular Disorders)

Was not as sensitive as ABC or DGI in identifying people with balance disorders who had vestibular dysfunction (ability to discriminate people with balance deficits):
- FTSTS = 65%
- ABC = 80%
- DGI = 78%

Cut-Off Scores

Stroke:

(Mong, 2010, Chronic Stroke)

Cutoff score of 12 seconds is discriminatory between healthy, elderly, and subjects with chronic stroke.

Test/Retest Reliability

Stroke:

(Mong, 2010, Stroke)

Excellent test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.994)

Interrater/Intrarater Reliability

Stroke:

(Mong, 2010, Stroke)

Excellent intrarater (ICC = 0.970)
Excellent Interrater: (ICC = 0.999)

Criterion Validity (Predictive/Concurrent)

Stroke:

(Beninato, 2009; n = 27; mean age = 57.2(12.4) years, Chronic Stroke)

Excellent correlation with the muscle strength of affected and unaffected knee flexors (r = -0.753 - 0.830)

(Mong, 2010, Chronic Stroke)

Excellent correlation with bilateral knee flexor strength
- Affected (r = -0.753)
- Unaffected (r = -0.830)
Not correlated with balance ability as tested with BBS

Test/Retest Reliability

Low Back Pain:

(Simmonds, 1998; n = 44 patients with low back pain and 48 healthy, pain-free control subjects, Low Back Pain)

Poor test-retest (ICC = 0.45)

Interrater/Intrarater Reliability

Low back pain:

(Simmonds,1998, Low Back Pain)

Excellent interrater reliability (ICC = 0.99)

Criterion Validity (Predictive/Concurrent)

Low back pain:

(Novy, 2002; n = 133 consecutive adult patients with low back pain who were referred for physical therapy assessment; mean age = 45 (12.88) years)

Excellent correlation with speed and coordination activities with quickly changing spinal loads (r = 0.91)

Construct Validity

Low Back Pain:

(Simmonds,1998, Low Back Pain)

Excellent correlation with 5 minute walk (r = -0.78, p < 0.01), 50 ft walk (r = 0.87) and repeated trunk flexion (r = 0.64)
Adequate correlation with lumbar flexion ROM (r = -0.45)

Test/Retest Reliability

Osteo-arthritis:

(Lin, 2001; n = 106 sedentary subjects with hip and/or knee OA, mean duration = 12.2 (11) years; mean age = 69.4 (5.9) years, Elderly with Osteo-Arthritis)

Excellent test-retest-excellent (ICC = 0.960)

Criterion Validity (Predictive/Concurrent)

Osteo-arthritis:

(Christiansen, 2010; n = 50 people with end-stage unilateral knee OA and healthy people 17 healthy people; mean age = 64.1(8.4) years, Osteo-arthritis of the Knee)

Adequate correlation with weight bearing asymmetry (r = -0.44)

Construct Validity

Rheumatoid Arthritis:

(Newcomer, 1993; n = 147 patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) or other chronic diseases; using 10 x Sit to Stand Test, Rheumatoid Arthritis)

Excellent correlation with 50 foot walk test (r = 0.66, p = 0.0001) and lower extremity manual muscle strength (r = 0.47, p = 0.0001)

Criterion Validity (Predictive/Concurrent)

Total knee arthroplasty:

(Piva, 2011; n = 31 people with Total Knee Arthroplasty; mean age = 68 years, Total Knee Arthroplasty)

Adequate correlation with hip abductor strength (r =-0.56, p < 0.01) and quadriceps strength (r = 0.44, p < 0.01)

Construct Validity

COPD:

(Ozalevli, 2007; n = 53 patients with stable COPD and 15 healthy individuals; mean age = 71 (12) years for patients with COPD and 63 (8) years for health individuals; using 1 Minute Sit to Stand Test, COPD)

Excellent correlation with 6MWT (r = 0.75, p < 0.001) and quadriceps strength (r = 0.65, p < 0.01)

Cut-Off Scores

Community-dwelling elderly:

(Tiedemann, 2008; n = 362 older community-dwelling people aged 74-98 years, Community-Dwelling Elderly)

Initial screening tool-cut off score of greater than or equal to 12 seconds to identify need of further assessment for fall risk.

(Buatois, 2010; n = 1,618 community-dwelling people over 65 years of age, Community-Dwelling Elderly)

To assess risk of recurrent falls-cut off score of > 15 seconds, especially in moderate risk category

(Mong, 2010, Community-Dwelling Elderly)

To discriminate between healthy elderly and those with chronic stroke, cut off score of 12 seconds

(Bohannon, 2006; individuals greater than 60 years of age, Community-Dwelling Elderly)

Estimate values for normal performance in community dwelling older adults
- 60-69 years: 11.4 sec (mean time)
- 70-79 years: 12.6 sec
- 80-89 years: 14.8 sec

Normative Data

Community Dwelling Adults:

(Bohannon, 2007; n = community dwelling adults; mean age = 51 (20.8) years, Community-Dwelling Adults)

Descriptive statistics for time (sec) for 5 sit-to-stand repetitions

Measurement (n)	Mean + SD	Minimum-Maximum
Trial 1: all ages (94)	7.8 + 2.8	4.0 – 16.3
Trial 2: all ages (94)	7.5 + 2.8	4.0 – 17.0
Mean: all ages (94)	7.6 + 2.7	4.0 – 16.0
Mean: 19-49 years (39)	6.2 + 1.3	4.1 – 11.5
Mean: 50-59 years (15)	7.1 + 1.5	4.4 – 9.1
Mean: 60-69 years (18)	8.1 + 3.1	4.0 – 15.1
Mean: 70-79 years (16)	10.0 + 3.1	4.5 – 15.5
Mean: 80-89 years (6)	10.6 + 3.4	7.8 – 16.0

Descriptive Statistics for demographic and physical functioning data

Variable	Mean +/- SD	Minimum-Maximum
Age (years)	51.1 +/- 20.8	19 - 84
Weight (kg)	73.0 +/- 16.0	49.1 – 127.3
Height (m)	1.68 +/- 0.09	1.47 – 1.88
Body mass index (kg/m^2)	25.6 +/- 4.5	18.9 – 40.8
Physical functioning (%)	87.2 +/- 18.6	0 - 100

Test/Retest Reliability

Community-dwelling elderly:

(Tiedemann, 2008; n = 362 older community-dwelling people aged 74-98 years, Community-Dwelling Elderly)

Adequate test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.890)

(Bohannon, 2007, Community-Dwelling Elderly)

Excellent test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.957)

Construct Validity

Community-dwelling elderly:

(Lord, 2002; n = 669 community-dwelling men and women aged 75-93 years; mean age = 78.9(4.1), Community-Dwelling Elderly)

Adequate construct validity with knee flexion and extension isometric force (r = -0.43, p < 0.01)

(Schaubert, 2005; n = 10 community-dwelling elderly individuals; mean age = 75.5 (5.8) years, Community-Dwelling Elderly)

Excellent correlation with TUG (r = 0.918) and gait speed (r = 0.943)

Floor/Ceiling Effects

Elderly:

(Bohannon et al, 2006; a literative review of 14 studies; individuals 60 years of age or older, Elderly)

60-69 y/o = 11.4 sec
70-79 y/o = 12.6 sec
80-89 y/o = 14.8 sec

Construct Validity

Multiple Sclerosis:

(Fry, 2006; using 6XSST, Multiple Sclerosis)

Excellent correlation with 6MWT (r = -0.82, p = 0.001) and functional stair test (r = 0.8, p = 0.001)
Adequate correlation with Borg RPE (rho = 0.51)

Construct Validity

Renal transplant:

(Bohannon, 1995; n = 110 renal transplant candidates; mean age = 45.1 (11.6 years);using 10 Second Sit to Stand, Renal Transplant)

Excellent to adequate convergent validity with knee extension isometric force
- non-dominant (r = 0.64)
- dominant (r = 0.59, p < 0.001)

Bibliography

Beninato, M., Portney, L. G., et al. (2009). "Using the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health as a framework to examine the association between falls and clinical assessment tools in people with stroke." Phys Ther 89(8): 816-825. Find it on PubMed

Bohannon, R. W. (2006). "Reference values for the five-repetition sit-to-stand test: a descriptive meta-analysis of data from elders." Percept Mot Skills 103(1): 215-222. Find it on PubMed

Bohannon, R. W., Smith, J., et al. (1995). "Deficits in lower extremity muscle and gait performance among renal transplant candidates." Arch Phys Med Rehabil 76(6): 547-551. Find it on PubMed

Bohannon, R.W., Shove, M.E., Barreca, S.R., Masters, L.M., & Sigouin, C.S. (2007). Five-repetition sit-to-stand test performance by community-dwelling adults: A preliminary investigation of times, determinants, and relationship with self-reported physical performance. Isokinetics and exercise science, 15(2), 77-81.

Buatois, S., Miljkovic, D., et al. (2008). "Five times sit to stand test is a predictor of recurrent falls in healthy community-living subjects aged 65 and older." J Am Geriatr Soc 56(8): 1575-1577. Find it on PubMed

Buatois, S., Perret-Guillaume, C., et al. (2010). "A simple clinical scale to stratify risk of recurrent falls in community-dwelling adults aged 65 years and older." Phys Ther 90(4): 550-560. Find it on PubMed

Christiansen, C. L. and Stevens-Lapsley, J. E. (2010). "Weight-bearing asymmetry in relation to measures of impairment and functional mobility for people with knee osteoarthritis." Arch Phys Med Rehabil 91(10): 1524-1528. Find it on PubMed

Duncan, R. P., Leddy, A. L., et al. (2011). "Five times sit-to-stand test performance in Parkinson's disease." Arch Phys Med Rehabil 92(9): 1431-1436. Find it on PubMed

Fry, D. K. and Pfalzer, L. A. (2006). "Reliability of four functional tests and rating of perceived exertion in persons with multiple sclerosis." Physiotherapy Canada 58(3): 212-220.

Lin, Y. C., Davey, R. C., et al. (2001). "Tests for physical function of the elderly with knee and hip osteoarthritis." Scand J Med Sci Sports 11(5): 280-286. Find it on PubMed

Lord, S. R., Murray, S. M., et al. (2002). "Sit-to-stand performance depends on sensation, speed, balance, and psychological status in addition to strength in older people." J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 57(8): M539-543. Find it on PubMed

Meretta, B. M., Whitney, S. L., et al. (2006). "The five times sit to stand test: responsiveness to change and concurrent validity in adults undergoing vestibular rehabilitation." J Vestib Res 16(4-5): 233-243. Find it on PubMed

Mong, Y., Teo, T. W., et al. (2010). "5-repetition sit-to-stand test in subjects with chronic stroke: reliability and validity." Arch Phys Med Rehabil 91(3): 407-413. Find it on PubMed

Newcomer, K. L., Krug, H. E., et al. (1993). "Validity and reliability of the timed-stands test for patients with rheumatoid arthritis and other chronic diseases." J Rheumatol 20(1): 21-27. Find it on PubMed

Novy, D. M., Simmonds, M. J., et al. (2002). "Physical performance tasks: what are the underlying constructs?" Arch Phys Med Rehabil 83(1): 44-47. Find it on PubMed

Ozalevli, S., Ozden, A., et al. (2007). "Comparison of the Sit-to-Stand Test with 6 min walk test in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease." Respir Med 101(2): 286-293. Find it on PubMed

Paul, S. S., Canning, C. G., et al. (2012). "Reproducibility of measures of leg muscle power, leg muscle strength, postural sway and mobility in people with Parkinson's disease." Gait & Posture 36(3): 639-642.

Piva, S. R., Teixeira, P. E., et al. (2011). "Contribution of hip abductor strength to physical function in patients with total knee arthroplasty." Phys Ther 91(2): 225-233. Find it on PubMed

Schaubert, K. L. and Bohannon, R. W. (2005). "Reliability and validity of three strength measures obtained from community-dwelling elderly persons." J Strength Cond Res 19(3): 717-720. Find it on PubMed

Simmonds, M. J., Olson, S. L., et al. (1998). "Psychometric characteristics and clinical usefulness of physical performance tests in patients with low back pain." Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 23(22): 2412-2421. Find it on PubMed

Tiedemann, A., Shimada, H., et al. (2008). "The comparative ability of eight functional mobility tests for predicting falls in community-dwelling older people." Age Ageing 37(4): 430-435. Find it on PubMed

Wang, T. H., Liao, H. F., et al. (2012). "Reliability and validity of the five-repetition sit-to-stand test for children with cerebral palsy." Clin Rehabil 26(7): 664-671. Find it on PubMed

Whitney, S. L., Wrisley, D. M., et al. (2005). "Clinical measurement of sit-to-stand performance in people with balance disorders: validity of data for the Five-Times-Sit-to-Stand Test." Phys Ther 85(10): 1034-1045. Find it on PubMed

Information Provided by Shirley Ryan AbilityLab

The Rehabilitation Measures Database (RMD) is a service provided by the Shirley Ryan AbilityLab, the nation’s #1 rehabilitation hospital and leader in translational medicine. Learn more about the conditions we treat, the continuing education courses and credits provided and about career opportunities.

Last Updated

Purpose

Link to Instrument

Area of Assessment

Assessment Type

Administration Mode

Cost

Diagnosis/Conditions

Number of Items

Required Training

Instrument Reviewers

Body Part

ICF Domain

Measurement Domain

Professional Association Recommendation

Considerations

Standard Error of Measurement (SEM)

Minimal Detectable Change (MDC)

Test/Retest Reliability

Construct Validity

Standard Error of Measurement (SEM)

Cut-Off Scores

Normative Data

Test/Retest Reliability

Interrater/Intrarater Reliability

Criterion Validity (Predictive/Concurrent)

Floor/Ceiling Effects

Minimally Clinically Important Difference (MCID)

Cut-Off Scores

Normative Data

Criterion Validity (Predictive/Concurrent)

Construct Validity

Responsiveness

Cut-Off Scores

Test/Retest Reliability

Interrater/Intrarater Reliability

Criterion Validity (Predictive/Concurrent)

Test/Retest Reliability

Interrater/Intrarater Reliability

Criterion Validity (Predictive/Concurrent)

Construct Validity

Test/Retest Reliability

Criterion Validity (Predictive/Concurrent)

Construct Validity

Criterion Validity (Predictive/Concurrent)

Construct Validity

Cut-Off Scores

Normative Data

Test/Retest Reliability

Construct Validity

Floor/Ceiling Effects

Construct Validity

Construct Validity

Bibliography

Information Provided by Shirley Ryan AbilityLab

Buss-Durkee Hostility Inve...

NIH Toolbox for Assessment...

PROMIS – Ability to Partic...