Construct Validity of the Gait Assessment and Intervention Tool (GAIT) in People With Multiple Sclerosis

Agreement between video-based clinician-rated tools and patient-reported outcomes on gait assessment in individuals with multiple sclerosis

PURPOSE

To our knowledge, no studies compared the video-clinician-based tools and patient-reported questionnaires in assessing gait and balance in people with MS (pwMS). The present study investigated the correlation and agreement between video-clinician-based objective measurement tools and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in gait and balance evaluation.

METHODS

A prospective cross-sectional study was conducted with 55 pwMS. Video analysis-based gait was evaluated by the Tinetti Gait Assessment (TGA), Gait Assessment and Intervention Tool (GAIT), and Functional Ambulation Classification Scale (FACS) by the clinician. Participants' self-reported gait and balance were assessed with the Multiple Sclerosis Walking Scale-12 (MSWS-12) and Activity-Specific Balance Confidence Scale (ABC).

RESULTS

There was a moderate positive correlation between ABC with TGA and FACS (r1: 0.552, r2: 0.510, p < 0.001). ABC was strongly correlated with GAIT (r: - 0.652, p < 0.001). A moderate positive correlation was observed between MSWS-12 with TGA and FACS (r1: - 0.575, r2: - 0.524, p < 0.001). In addition, there was a strong positive correlation between MSWS-12 and GAIT (r: - 0.652, p < 0.001). Clinician-rated tools and PROMs were within the agreement limits regarding the unstandardized beta values p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Clinician-based gait and balance tools demonstrate consistent results with PROMs in pwMS. Considering the low cost and practical use of PROMs, in cases where video-based clinician-based measurements cannot be provided (time, space, and technical inadequacies), questionnaires can provide concordant results at moderate and severe levels compared with objective tools.

Update on an Observational, Clinically Useful Gait Coordination Measure: The Gait Assessment and Intervention Tool (G.A.I.T.)

With discoveries of brain and spinal cord mechanisms that control gait, and disrupt gait coordination after disease or injury, and that respond to motor training for those with neurological disease or injury, there is greater ability to construct more efficacious gait coordination training paradigms. Therefore, it is critical in these contemporary times, to use the most precise, sensitive, homogeneous (i.e., domain-specific), and comprehensive measures available to assess gait coordination, dyscoordination, and changes in response to treatment. Gait coordination is defined as the simultaneous performance of the spatial and temporal components of gait. While kinematic gait measures are considered the gold standard, the equipment and analysis cost and time preclude their use in most clinics. At the same time, observational gait coordination scales can be considered. Two independent groups identified the Gait Assessment and Intervention Tool (G.A.I.T.) as the most suitable scale for both research and clinical practice, compared to other observational gait scales, since it has been proven to be valid, reliable, sensitive to change, homogeneous, and comprehensive. The G.A.I.T. has shown strong reliability, validity, and sensitive precision for those with stroke or multiple sclerosis (MS). The G.A.I.T. has been translated into four languages (English, Spanish, Taiwanese, and Portuguese (translation is complete, but not yet published)), and is in use in at least 10 countries. As a contribution to the field, and in view of the evidence for continued usefulness and international use for the G.A.I.T. measure, we have provided this update, as well as an open access copy of the measure for use in clinical practice and research, as well as directions for administering the G.A.I.T.

Three decades of gait index development: A comparative review of clinical and research gait indices

BACKGROUND

A wide variety of indices have been developed to quantify gait performance markers and associate them with their respective pathologies. Indices scores have enabled better decisions regarding patient treatments and allowed for optimized monitoring of the evolution of their condition. The extensive range of human gait indices presented over the last 30 years is evaluated and summarized in this narrative literature review exploring their application in clinical and research environments.

METHODS

The analysis will explore historical and modern gait indices, focusing on the clinical efficacy with respect to their proposed pathology, age range, and associated parameter limits. Features, methods, and clinically acceptable errors are discussed while simultaneously assessing indices advantages and disadvantages. This review analyses all indices published between 1994 and February 2021 identified using the Medline, PubMed, ScienceDirect, CINAHL, EMBASE, and Google Scholar databases.

FINDINGS

A total of 30 indices were identified as noteworthy for clinical and research purposes and another 137 works were included for discussion. The indices were divided in three major groups: observational (13), instrumented (16) and hybrid (1). The instrumented indices were further sub-divided in six groups, namely kinematic- (4), spatiotemporal- (5), kinetic- (2), kinematic- and kinetic- (2), electromyographic- (1) and Inertial Measurement Unit-based indices (2).

INTERPRETATION

This work is one of the first reviews to summarize observational and instrumented gait indices, exploring their applicability in research and clinical contexts. The aim of this review is to assist members of these communities with the selection of the proper index for the group in analysis.