Timed up and go and 30-S chair-stand tests applied via video call are reliable and provide results similar to face-to-face assessment of older adults with different musculoskeletal conditions

Background: Remote assessments are promising for coping with adverse situations, such as those imposed by the COVID-19 pandemic. Measurement properties must be specific to the characteristics of the population and the context in which the instruments are used.

Purpose: s: 1) To evaluate the parallel reliability of the timed up and go (TUG) and 30-s chair-stand test (30CST) performed in-person and remotely and 2) to analyze the intra-rater, inter-rater, and test-retest reliability of these tests assessed remotely in older adults with different musculoskeletal conditions.

Methods: The sample included 50 older adults. Parallel reliability was determined by comparing in-person and remote data. Bland-Altman plots displayed differences between tests (TUG and 30CST) performed in-person and remotely, showing the mean scores of each participant. The intra-rater, inter-rater, and test-retest reliability for remote assessments were analyzed using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) with a 95% confidence interval.

Results: Parallel reliability was high between in-person and remote assessments (ICC >0.82). Intra-rater, inter-rater, and test-retest reliability were very high for remote assessments (ICC >0.90). The minimal detectable change for the remote assessment of TUG (MDC <1.95) and 30CST (MDC <2.39) indicated adequate sensitivity. In both tests, the standard error of the measurement was acceptable (SEM% < 10%) and Bland-Altman limits of agreement were solid.

Conclusions: The remote assessment of TUG and 30CST in older adults with different musculoskeletal conditions was as reliable as those performed in person and may be considered when in-person assessments are impossible.