MARATTO

article · Medical Principles and Practice

Reference Values for 3-Meter Backward Walk Test among Apparently Healthy Adults

20234 citationsOpen accessOsun State University

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The 3-meter backward walk (3MBW) test is an outcome performance measure to assess backward walking mobility, balance, and risk of fall. However, the lack of baseline values is a potential limitation for its use as a rehabilitation target value or predictor of outcomes. This study aimed at ascertaining a gender- and age-reference value of 3MBW and determining its correlation with sociodemographic and anthropometric variables. METHODS: A total of 1,601 Nigerian healthy adults participated in this cross-sectional study. 3MBW was measured following standardized procedure on a marked 3-m floor. Anthropometric and sociodemographic parameters were taken. Data were summarized using the descriptive statistics of mean, standard deviation, and percentile (less than the 25th, between the 25th and 75th, and above the 75th percentiles were regarded as low, average, and high 3MBW, respectively). RESULTS: From this study, less than 2.23 s and 2.60 s were regarded as low risk of fall for males and females, respectively; 2.23-3.00 s and 2.60-3.50 s were regarded as average risk of fall for males and females, respectively, while greater than 3.00-3.9 s and 3.50-3.90 s were regarded as high risk of fall for males and females, respectively. 3MBWT was significantly associated with age (r = 0.51, p = 0.001), sex (r = 0.315, p = 0.001), weight (r = 0.14, p = 0.001), BMI (r = 0.28, p = 0.001), but not height (r = -0.03; p = 0.250). CONCLUSION: This study provided a reference set of values according to age and gender for 3MBW in healthy individuals. Males have shorter 3MBW than females, and the time taken to accomplish 3MBW increases with age.

Research topics

  • Balance, Gait, and Falls Prevention
  • Cerebral Palsy and Movement Disorders
  • Spinal Cord Injury Research

Read the original research

This page summarises published work. The authoritative version sits with the publisher.

DOI: 10.1159/000534649

Is something wrong with this record? Report it or request removal.

Discussion

Discuss this research

Have you built on this work, tried to replicate it, or seen it applied in practice? Share what you know. Verified researchers and MARATTO™ domain experts can open a discussion, and any member can reply. Contributions are reviewed before they appear.

No discussion yet. Open the first thread.