Abstract
Objective
To assess the retest reliability, predictive validity, and concurrent validity of
locomotor and cognitive dual-task cost (DTC) metrics derived from locomotor-cognitive
dual-task paradigms.
Data Sources
A literature search of electronic databases (PubMed, PsycINFO, MEDLINE, CINAHL, and
Scopus) was conducted on 29th May 2021 without time restriction.
Study Selection
For 1559 search results, titles and abstracts were screened by a single reviewer and
full-text of potentially eligible papers was considered by two independent reviewers.
25 studies that evaluated retest reliability, predictive validity, and concurrent
validity of locomotor-cognitive DTC in healthy and clinical groups met inclusion criteria.
Data Extraction
Study quality was assessed using the COSMIN checklist. Data relating to the retest
reliability, predictive validity, and concurrent validity of DTC were extracted.
Data Synthesis
Meta-analysis showed that locomotor DTC metrics (ICC=0.61, 95%CI [0.53,0.70]) had
better retest reliability than cognitive DTC metrics (ICC=0.27, 95%CI [0.17,0.36]).
Larger retest reliability estimates were found for temporal gait outcomes (ICC=0.67-0.72)
compared with spatial (ICC=0.34-0.53). Motor DTC metrics showed weak predictive validity
for the incidence of future falls (r=0.14, 95%CI [-0.03,0.31]). Motor DTC metrics had weak concurrent validity with other
clinical and performance assessments (r=0.11, 95%CI [0.07,0.16]), as did cognitive DTC metrics (r=0.19, 95%CI [0.08,0.30]).
Conclusions
Gait-related temporal DTC metrics achieve adequate retest reliability, while predictive
and concurrent validity of DTC needs to be improved before being used widely in clinical
practice and other applied settings. Future research should ensure the reliability
and validity of DTC outcomes before being used to assess dual-task interference.
Keywords
List of abbreviations:
DTI (dual-task interference), DTC (dual-task cost), ICC (Intraclass Correlation Coefficient), MS (Multiple Sclerosis), EDSS (Expanded Disability Status Scale), PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses), KCC (Kendal's Coefficient of Concordance), OR (Odds Ratios), TUG (Timed Up and Go), COSMIN (Consensus-Based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments)To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:
Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online accessOne-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:
Subscribe to Archives of Physical Medicine and RehabilitationAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
Article Info
Publication History
Accepted:
July 25,
2022
Received in revised form:
July 18,
2022
Received:
January 4,
2022
Publication stage
In Press Journal Pre-ProofFootnotes
Disclosure of interest: The authors report that they have no competing interest.
Acknowledgements: None
PROSPERO Registration: CRD42021250875
Identification
Copyright
© 2022 Published by Elsevier Inc. on behalf of the American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine
