Next Article in Journal
Can the Norton Scale Score Be Used as an Adjunct Tool for Implantable Defibrillator Patient Selection? A Retrospective Single-Center Cohort Study
Next Article in Special Issue
The Effects of Body Composition Characteristics on the Functional Disability in Patients with Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Stenosis
Previous Article in Journal
Cross-Sectional Study on Lateral Skull Radiographs to Design a New Nasopharyngeal Swab for Simplified COVID-19 and Respiratory Infections Diagnostic Testing in Children
Previous Article in Special Issue
The Importance of Nutrition as a Lifestyle Factor in Chronic Pain Management: A Narrative Review
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
JCM
Volume 12
Issue 1
10.3390/jcm12010212
jcm-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Test–Retest Reliability and Concurrent Validity of the 3 m Backward Walk Test under Single and Dual-Task Conditions in Women with Fibromyalgia

by
Juan Luis Leon-Llamas
1,
Santos Villafaina
1,2,*,
Alvaro Murillo-Garcia
1,
Francisco Javier Domínguez-Muñoz
1 and
Narcis Gusi
1,3
1
Grupo de Investigación Actividad Física y Calidad de Vida (AFYCAV), Facultad de Ciencias del Deporte, Universidad de Extremadura, 10003 Caceres, Spain
2
Departamento de Desporto e Saúde, Escola de Saúde e Desenvolvimento Humano, Universidade de Évora, 7004-516 Évora, Portugal
3
International Institute for Innovation in Aging, University of Extremadura, 10003 Caceres, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Clin. Med. 2023, 12(1), 212; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12010212
Submission received: 14 November 2022 / Revised: 20 December 2022 / Accepted: 24 December 2022 / Published: 27 December 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Chronic Pain: Clinical Updates and Perspectives)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Background: Previous studies have reported good test–retest reliability for the 3 m backward test (3MBWT) in different populations. However, reliability of the 3MBWT has not been studied in fibromyalgia (FM) under single and dual-task conditions; Methods: A total of 21 women with FM participated in this study. Participants completed the Revised Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire and two physical fitness tests: the 3MBWT and the Timed Up and Go (TUG). The dual-task condition consisted of subtracting two by two while performing the test, starting from a random number less than 100; Results: Values showed that the 3MBWT can be considered reliable under single and dual-task conditions when measured with both a manual stopwatch and a Chronopic automatic stopwatch. A strong concurrent validity was shown of 3MBWT and TUG results in the test and retest and the different devices. The relationship between the performance of the 3MBWT in test and retest conditions under single and dual-task conditions measured with different devices and the impact of the disease were high; Conclusions: The 3MBWT is a reliable tool under the single and dual-task conditions in women with FM. It shows higher reliability values when time is taken using a Chronopic. This test also shows high concurrent validity with the TUG test. Its performance is related to the impact of the disease.

1. Introduction

Fibromyalgia (FM) is a chronic disease that is characterized by chronic widespread, diffuse, and persistent musculoskeletal pain, often accompanied by other symptoms, such as fatigue, sleep disorders, mood disturbance, anxiety, depression, cognitive problems, low physical activity, and balance problems [1,2,3]. All these symptoms have an important influence on the activities of daily living [4] and tend to reduce the health-related quality of life in this population [5]. It is estimated that FM affects 0.2% to 6.6% of the general population and mainly women over 50 years old [6].
One of the ten most debilitating symptoms of FM is balance impairments, which is experienced by 45% of this population [7]. Moreover, people with FM usually report nonspecific postural balance disorder, an increased prevalence of falls [8], a reduced performance in mobility [9,10,11], a higher risk of falling [12,13,14], and, therefore, a lower performance on balance tests [12,14]. In addition, gait disturbances [15] that are influenced by attention and executive function [16] have been also detected.
One of the most important objectives that a rehabilitation or training program should follow is to increase the individual’s performance to minimize the risks associated with the condition. Therefore, previous studies have evaluated the physical fitness of people with FM using different tests to assess flexibility [17], endurance [10], strength [10,17,18,19], balance [9], or mobility [11,17]. Among the physical fitness tests used to assess functional mobility, the Timed Up and Go test (TUG) has been used in different populations [20,21], including FM [9,11,17]. This test involves walking forward, balance, and turning tasks. Nevertheless, walking backward, which is not contemplated in the TUG test, is more complex and requires higher neuromuscular and proprioceptive control [22]. Moreover, it is a task that can occur in everyday life situations, such as opening a door, avoiding an obstacle, or backing up to a chair [23]. Additionally, walking backward is considered a more sensitive measure for assessing mobility and balance deficits [24,25]. In this regard, Carter et al. [23] proposed the 3 m walking backward test (3MBWT). This is a clinical tool developed in healthy older adults to identify the risk of falling that appears to be more accurate or equal to other existing tests such as TUG, Five Times Sit-to-Stand, and Four Square Step Test. Regarding the 3MBWT, it has shown high test–retest reliability and validity in the stroke population [26], community-dwelling older adults [27], multiple sclerosis [28,29], and patients with advanced knee osteoarthritis [30]. However, this test has yet to be studied in people with FM. Interestingly, it could become an important clinical tool due to the characteristics of this population since it is essential to perform a functional assessment of mobility and balance to aid in diagnosing and managing the disease.
Due to the similarities to real-life conditions and activities of daily living requirements [31], previous studies have included a simultaneous cognitive task (dual-task paradigm). Therefore, assessing these activities is essential in clinical and ecological settings since they require significant attention and executive processes [31]. In this regard, people with FM have exhibited a considerable impairment in dual-task performance compared to healthy controls [32,33,34]. Furthermore, the reliability of the chair stand test [18], 10-m walking test [11], TUG [11], and arm curl test [18] under dual-task conditions have been explored for people with FM. Nevertheless, the reliability of walking backward while performing a cognitive task has yet to be assessed. This issue is crucial since healthcare professionals and researchers can better understand an individual’s symptoms and develop a more effective treatment plan to address their specific needs.
To our knowledge, previous investigations have not explored the reliability and validity of the 3MBWT in people with FM. Therefore, this study aimed to analyze the test–retest reliability of the 3MBWT under single and dual-task conditions. As a secondary objective, we also aimed to evaluate the test–rest reliability using different instruments (stopwatch and Chronopic). Lastly, we also aimed to assess the concurrent validity of the TUG and 3MBWT as well as the relationship between the 3MBWT test and the impact of the disease. We hypothesized that good test–retest reliability values would be obtained with both Chronopic and stopwatch, with higher scores when using a Chronopic, as previous studies suggested [9,11]. Additionally, a high concurrent validity between the 3MBWT and TUG test would be obtained considering the results reported in previous research [26,27,28,29], and a significant correlation between the 3MBWT and the impact of the disease would be observed.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Participants

Twenty-one women with FM were enrolled in this cross-sectional study. The sample size and statistical power were calculated using the PASS software (version 11.0; PASS; Kaysville, Utah). In this regard, with two samples per participant, there is a 98% power to detect an intra-class correlation of 0.95 under the alternative hypothesis when the intraclass correlation under the null hypothesis is 0.75, using an F-test with a significance level of 0.05.
The participants fulfilled the following inclusion criteria for this study: (a) to be a female between 35 and 65 years old, (b) to be diagnosed with FM by a rheumatologist according to the criteria established by the American College of Rheumatology [35], and (c) to understand the physical fitness protocols. Participants were excluded if they: (a) were pregnant, (b) were enrolled in another clinical trial or research that could impact the results, and (c) had any condition where exercise is contraindicated.
All the participants gave written informed consent. The Research Ethics Committee of the University of Extremadura approved the protocols of the current study (approval reference: 51/2021).

2.2. Procedure

The Spanish version of the Revised Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire (FIQR) was administered [36]. This instrument is composed of 21 items divided into three domains (function, overall impact, and symptoms). The maximum score is 100, which corresponds to the worst overall impact. In addition, age and anthropometric measurements were acquired using a Tanita Body Composition Analyzer BC-418 MA (Tanita Corp., Tokyo, Japan).
The 3MBWT and (2) the TUG were performed under single and dual-task conditions. The dual-task condition consisted of subtracting two by two (a random number lower than 100) while performing the physical fitness tests.
The 3 m Backward Walk Test (3MBWT) was performed according to the procedure proposed by Carter et al. [23]. A distance of three meters was measured with black tape establishing the start and finish. Participants were asked to place their heels on the start mark. Then, they had to walk backward as fast and safely as possible at the “go” signal. Running was not allowed, and they could look behind themselves if they wished.
In the Timed Up and Go (TUG) test, participants had to get up from a chair without armrests, walk a distance of 3 m without running, turn around a cone, walk back to the chair, and sit down [37].
Simultaneous stopwatch and automatic timer records were obtained. For the TUG, the Chronopic (Chronojump, BoscoSystem®, Barcelona, Spain) time was obtained using a DIN A4-sized contact platform placed on the back of the chair, which was used to open and close the circuit to obtain the test time [9,11]. For the 3MBWT a DIN A2-sized contact platform on the start line combined with a photocell on the end line was used. Physical tests were repeated after seven days to avoid learning effect [11,18,38,39]. Participants performed three trials for each condition (single and dual-task), and the order of TUG test and 3MBWT was randomized.

2.3. Statistical Analysis

Statistical analysis was conducted using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS, version 24.0; IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA) software. Based on data provided by the Shapiro–Wilk test, parametric tests were employed. The statistical significance was established at the p ≤ 0.05 level. To estimate the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and its 95% confidence intervals of the 3MBWT in the single and dual-task conditions at test and retest times, the 3,1 (Two-way mixed effects, consistency, single rater/measurement) model was used following the recommendations by Weir [40] and Koo [41]. Regarding the ICC classification, an ICC value lower than 0.50 indicates “poor” reliability, an ICC value between 0.50 and 0.75 indicates “moderate” reliability, an ICC value between 0.75 and 0.90 indicates “good” reliability, and an ICC value higher than 0.90 indicates “excellent” reliability. This ICC classification was interpreted according to the guideline proposed by Koo [41].
The standard error of measurement (SEM) was calculated using the following formula:
SEM = SD   × 1 − ICC
The minimal detectable change (MDC) was obtained according to the formula:
MDC = 1.96 × SEM   × 2
The SEM and MDC were expressed as a percentage according to the following formula, SEM %   or   MCD % = ( SEM   or   MCD / mean ) × 100 , where the mean is the average of the test and retest.
To identify the level of agreement between the test and retest, and the measuring devices in the 3MBWT under single and dual-task conditions, Bland–Altman plots were performed [42].
The Pearson’s product–moment correlation coefficient (r) was used to explore the concurrent validity comparing the 3MBWT and the TUG. Finally, the relationship between 3MBWT and the impact of the disease was also analyzed through the total value of the FIQR. Cohen’s recommendations [43] were followed to interpret the correlation coefficient. A score ≥ 0.5 was strong, moderate if the score was between 0.5 and 0.35, and poor if the score was ≤0.35.

3. Results

A total of 21 women with FM from a local association participated in this study. The main characteristics of the participants are shown in Table 1.
Table 2 shows the relative reliability (ICC) and absolute reliability (SEM and MDC) of the performance obtained in the 3MBWT, under the single and dual-task conditions in both test and retest with the different devices. Following the recommendations by Koo et al. [41], the 95% confidence intervals of the ICC were used to interpret the reliability values. Regarding the single condition, “poor” to “good” and “moderate” to “excellent” reliability values were obtained for the stopwatch and Chronopic, respectively. On the other hand, in the dual-task condition, the reliability values for the stopwatch were “moderate” to “excellent” and for the Chronopic were “good” to “excellent”.
Reliability values obtained by comparing the different devices in both the single and dual-task conditions in the test and retest are shown in Table 3. Taking into account the 95% confidence intervals of the ICC, a reliability value of “good” to “excellent” was obtained for the test, and an “excellent” value was obtained for the retest in the single and dual-task condition.
Figure 1 shows the Bland–Altman plots of the times obtained by stopwatch and Chronopic in test and retest in the single and dual-task conditions, and the times obtained between the two devices in both the single and dual-task conditions in the test and retest, respectively.
Table 4 shows the concurrent validity analysis results of 3MBWT and TUG test. All correlation values obtained were classified as strong [43] in the test and retest and the different devices.
Finally, the relationship between the performance of the 3MBWT in test and retest conditions under single and dual-task conditions measured with different devices and the impact of the disease were strong, excepting the 3MBWT in test condition under single condition measured with a stopwatch (r: 0.488), which was moderate. In analyzing the dimensions that make up the FIQR questionnaire, strong correlations were obtained between the “symptoms” dimension and all the conditions and devices. Similarly, strong correlations were also obtained between the dimension “overall impact” except for the single and dual-task conditions in the test period, measured with the stopwatch and the Chronopic, respectively, where moderate correlations were reported. As for the dimension “function,” only moderate correlations were found in the single condition in the retest and test periods, measured with a stopwatch and Chronopic, respectively. Results are shown in Table 5.
Figure 1 Bland–Altman plots of the times obtained by stopwatch and Chronopic in test and retest under the single and dual-task conditions and Bland–Altman plots of the times obtained between the two devices under the single and dual-task conditions in the test and retest.

4. Discussion

This study aimed to investigate the test–retest reliability and concurrent validity of the 3MBWT in women with FM under single and dual-task conditions. We also aimed to investigate the agreement between a manual stopwatch and a Chronopic automatic stopwatch. In order to provide clinical and objective directions, the SEM, MDC, and Bland–Altman plots were reported. Generally, good reliability values were obtained for the 3MBWT test when measured with a stopwatch and Chronopic in both single and dual-task conditions. Similarly, the 3MBWT and the TUG achieved good concurrent validity. Lastly, performance between 3MBWT and the impact of the disease were analyzed, and consistent relationships were found between both.
In the present study, walking backward has been analyzed because it is a complex task that requires high neuromuscular and proprioceptive control [22]. Walking backward usually occurs in activities of daily living, such as opening a door, avoiding an obstacle, or backing up to a chair [23]. Therefore, it is a sensitive measure for assessing mobility and balance deficits [24,25]. In people with FM, performing a functional assessment of mobility and balance is essential to manage the disease. However, one of the main tests used to evaluate these characteristics in this population is the TUG [9,11,17]. However, this test does not include backward gait. In this sense, we consider it relevant to analyze the psychometric properties of the 3MBWT in people with FM since previous studies have focused on other populations obtaining good reliability and validity values [26,27,28,29]. Therefore, the 3MBWT is a tool that can be used elsewhere in the clinical and research context. Moreover, due to the fact that more than one task is performed at the same time in activities of daily living, and the impairment in dual-task ability detected on people with FM [32,44,45], we decided to incorporate the dual-task paradigm in this cross-sectional study.
Results showed that the 3MBWT could be considered reliable under single and dual-task conditions when measured with both a stopwatch and a Chronopic. However, it is necessary to consider the ICC fluctuation range [41]. Nevertheless, the data presented in the Bland–Altman plots (Figure 1) showed that most of the 3MBWT values were close to the mean of the test–retest differences in both single and dual-task conditions, having a bias close to zero and a reduced variability seeing the limits of agreement. Therefore, there is a high level of agreement between the test–retest measures evaluated in the 3MBWT since the values obtained provide consistent results. The reported ICC in the single condition with a stopwatch (0.71, 95% CI 0.283–0.882) is lower than those reported in previous studies that investigated test–retest reliability in stroke [26] (0.985, 95% CI 0.973–0.992), community-dwelling older adults [27] (0.940, 95% CI 0.90–0.96), and primary total knee arthroplasty [46] (0.942).
Our findings might be due to the symptomatology of FM [47], characterized by widespread pain and fatigue, which can fluctuate in intensity and severity over time [48,49]. For this reason, a person’s symptoms and level of functioning can vary daily and affect the physical fitness performance. In this regard, previous studies highlighted what can affect performance in physical fitness tests [50,51]. The same rationale can also affect cognitive function [52], including attention, memory, and information processing. These factors may have contributed to the variability of results between the test and retest. Nevertheless, the ICC values obtained in the present study are acceptable, so the test analyzed seems to be stable enough to be used in the characterization of people with FM.
The optimal time interval between tests may vary depending on the construct being measured, the stability of the construct over time, and the target population [53]. For this study, a seven-day period was selected, the same as previous studies conducted in people with FM [11,18,38,39], to minimize the impact of potential confounding variables, such as recovery or learning effects [54]. However, other studies have used shorter test–retest times to assess test–retest reliability on the 3MBWT [26,27,28,29]. In addition, the tests (TUG and 3MBWT), as well as the conditions (single and dual-task), were randomized to ensure that the order of administration may not bias the results. In this way, obtaining more accurate and reliable results is possible by eliminating biases and reducing the influence of external factors that may affect the results.
As expected, the ICC values were slightly higher when using Chronopic versus stopwatch, since the use of a manual stopwatch adds human variability to the measurement by the evaluator [9,55]. Therefore, using an automatic timer can be a cost-effective alternative to assess performance in the 3MBWT in both single and dual conditions. However, although the ICC values obtained by the stopwatch are slightly lower than those obtained by the Chronopic, our data suggest that the use of a manual stopwatch could be also very useful for this test, since it yields relatively good reliability values in both single (0.71, 95% CI 0.283–0.882) and dual-task conditions (0.89, 95% CI 0.718–0.954) (see Table 2). Similarly, the lower ICC obtained in the single and dual-task conditions in the test performance was probably due to human error experienced when using a manual stopwatch. This may be suggested since the scores between the stopwatch and the Chronopic differed slightly, unlike the values obtained in the new test. Nevertheless, the ICC values obtained are classified as good to excellent (see Table 3).
Our study also provided the SEM and MDC values of the 3MBWT under all conditions and devices. These values are important for interpreting the results of the 3MBWT, because they can help clinicians and researchers to determine if there are meaningful changes in the performance of this test. Furthermore, the estimate of random variation in the data (SEM) and the minimum detectable change (MDC) are both lower when the Chronopic is used. Previous research has also observed this trend assessing test–retest reliability under the single condition in TUG and 30 s chair stand test [9,55]. Bland–Altman plots were also reported for a more comprehensive analysis of the results, showing bias and limits of agreement.
In our study, the TUG test was used to test the validity of the 3MBWT since it is a tool frequently used in clinical practice [56,57], showing high reliability in FM in both single [9] and dual-task conditions [11]. Although the TUG test does not contemplate walking backward, as previous studies did [26,27,28,29], in the present study we have used the TUG test to conduct the concurrent validity. Moreover, this test has obtained the highest relationship values in most cases [26,27,29]. Significant correlations between 3MBWT and TUG tests were obtained, which can be considered relevant since the TUG test comprises movements that can occur in activities of daily living, including walking, turning, and sitting [37]. In addition, correlation analyses showed a strong correlation in the single condition between the 3MBWT and TUG test measured with a stopwatch, as in previous studies in stroke [26], community-dwelling older adults [27], and adults [23]. In our study, the correlation in single conditions between 3MBWT and TUG measured through the automatic timer also showed strong correlation values. Similarly, the correlation in the dual-task conditions also obtained strong values in the test and retest measured by a stopwatch and a Chronopic.
Our results also found a positive correlation between the 3MBWT performance and the impact of FM obtained through the FIQR questionnaire. Strong to moderate correlations were found between FIQR total score and the performance obtained in single and dual-task conditions using manual stopwatch and Chronopic. Additionally, correlations between FIQR dimensions and 3MBWT have been reported. In this line, the strongest correlations were found in the symptoms dimension, followed by overall impact, where moderate correlations were also found. However, function dimension did not show significant correlation with 3MBWT performance in most cases. These findings could indicate that performance on the 3MBWT does not correlate well with the actions included in the function dimension by including activities that are not highly associated with walking backward (i.e., combing hair, preparing food, shopping) but do correlate with symptomatology and overall impact. Nevertheless, future studies should corroborate this hypothesis.
Previous studies have highlighted the importance of assessing backward gait in older adults [24,25], showing a reduction in performance in different parameters when comparing to young and middle-aged adults. In this regard, during backward gait, greater neuromuscular and proprioceptive control is required, in addition to faster and more frequent balance corrections due to the elimination of visual feedback [22,58]. Additionally, it has been shown that walking backward shows greater or equal sensibility than walking forward, and it is strongly related to the risk of falling [23]. In this sense, assessing backward gait, via the 3MBWT, in FM may be of interest to clinicians to observe changes in mobility and balance due to the balance impairment manifested in this population [59]. Thus, a previous study [60] conducted a physical exercise intervention based on walking backward in community-dwelling older adults. Given these reasons and the strong relationships between the impact of the disease and the performance obtained in the 3MBWT, this test can be used as a useful tool in FM populations to assess exercise-based interventions.
The present study has some limitations. In this regard, the relatively small sample size did not allow us to generalize results to all women with FM. Moreover, only women were included in this cross-sectional study. Thus, results cannot be extrapolated to men with this disease. Therefore, it would be interesting to extend the sample with different age ranges, which allow us to establish cut-off points.

5. Conclusions

The results obtained from this study show that the 3MBWT is a reliable tool under the single and dual-task conditions in women with FM. It shows higher reliability values when time is taken using a Chronopic. This test also shows high concurrent validity with the TUG test, and its performance is related to the impact of the disease. These results may help clinicians and researchers in the assessment of balance and functional mobility and to interpret the effect of interventions in this population.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, J.L.L.-L., F.J.D.-M. and N.G.; Data curation, A.M.-G. and F.J.D.-M.; Formal analysis, J.L.L.-L., A.M.-G. and F.J.D.-M.; Investigation, S.V.; Methodology, S.V. and N.G.; Project administration, N.G.; Supervision, S.V.; Validation, A.M.-G. and N.G.; Visualization, J.L.L.-L.; Writing—original draft, J.L.L.-L. and S.V.; Writing—review and editing, A.M.-G., F.J.D.-M. and N.G. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The author J.L.L.-L. was supported by a grant from the Spanish Ministry of Education, Culture, and Sport (FPU18/05655). The author S.V. was supported by a grant from the Universities Ministry of Spain and the European Union (NextGenerationUE) “Ayuda del Programa de Recualificación del Sistema Universitario Español, Modalidad de ayudas Margarita Salas para la formación de jóvenes doctores” (MS-03). The author A.M.-G. was supported by a grant from the Spanish Ministry of Education, Culture and Sport (FPU17/03130). In the framework of the Spanish National R+D+i Plan, the current study was co-funded by the Spanish Ministry of Sciences and Innovation (reference PID2019-107191RB-I00/AEI/10.13039/501100011033). This study was also funded by the Research Grant for Groups (GR21176) funded by the Junta de Extremadura and the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF/FEDER) “a way of doing Europe”. This study was supported by the Biomedical Research Networking Center on Frailty and Healthy Aging (CIBERFES) and FEDER funds from the European Union (CB16/10/00477) “a way of doing Europe”.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the University of Extremadura (approval reference: 51/2021).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

Data are available under reasonable request to the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

The authors are very grateful to the Extremadura Association of Fibromyalgia (AFIBROEX) in Cáceres for helping recruit the participants for this study.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. Wolfe, F.; Clauw, D.J.; Fitzcharles, M.A.; Goldenberg, D.; Katz, R.; Mease, P.; Russell, A.; Russell, J.; Winfield, J.; Yunus, M. The American College of Rheumatology preliminary diagnostic criteria for fibromyalgia and measurement of symptom severity. Arthritis Care Res. 2010, 62, 600–610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  2. Macfarlane, G.J.; Kronisch, C.; Dean, L.E.; Atzeni, F.; Häuser, W.; Fluß, E.; Choy, E.; Kosek, E.; Amris, K.; Branco, J.; et al. EULAR revised recommendations for the management of fibromyalgia. Ann. Rheum. Dis. 2017, 76, 318–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Collado-Mateo, D.; Gallego-Diaz, J.M.; Adsuar, J.; Domínguez-Muñoz, F.J.; Olivares, P.R.; Gusi, N. Fear of falling in women with fibromyalgia and its relation with number of falls and balance performance. BioMed Res. Int. 2015, 2015, 589014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  4. Gaudreault, N.; Boulay, P. Cardiorespiratory fitness among adults with fibromyalgia. Breathe 2018, 14, e25–e33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  5. Hoffman, D.L.; Dukes, E.M. The health status burden of people with fibromyalgia: A review of studies that assessed health status with the SF-36 or the SF-12. Int. J. Clin. Pract. 2008, 62, 115–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  6. Marques, A.P.; Santo, A.d.S.d.E.; Berssaneti, A.A.; Matsutani, L.A.; Yuan, S.L.K. Prevalence of fibromyalgia: Literature review update. Rev. Bras. Reumatol. 2017, 57, 356–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Bennett, R.M.; Jones, J.; Turk, D.C.; Russell, I.J.; Matallana, L. An internet survey of 2596 people with fibromyalgia. BMC Musculoskelet. Disord. 2007, 8, 27. [Google Scholar]
  8. Jones, K.D.; Horak, F.B.; Winters, K.S.; Morea, J.M.; Bennett, R.M. Fibromyalgia is associated with impaired balance and falls. J. Clin. Rheumatol. Pract. Rep. Rheum. Musculoskelet. Dis. 2009, 15, 16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Collado-Mateo, D.; Domínguez-Muñoz, F.J.; Adsuar, J.C.; Merellano-Navarro, E.; Olivares, P.R.; Gusi, N. Reliability of the timed up and go test in fibromyalgia. Rehabil. Nurs. J. 2018, 43, 35–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Villafaina, S.; Borrega-Mouquinho, Y.; Fuentes-García, J.P.; Collado-Mateo, D.; Gusi, N. Effect of Exergame Training and Detraining on Lower-Body Strength, Agility, and Cardiorespiratory Fitness in Women with Fibromyalgia: Single-Blinded Randomized Controlled Trial. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Murillo-Garcia, A.; Villafaina, S.; Leon-Llamas, J.L.; Sánchez-Gómez, J.; Domínguez-Muñoz, F.J.; Collado-Mateo, D.; Gusi, N. Mobility Assessment under Dual Task Conditions in Women with Fibromyalgia: A Test-Retest Reliability Study. PM&R 2021, 13, 66–72. [Google Scholar]
  12. Jones, K.D.; King, L.A.; Mist, S.D.; Bennett, R.M.; Horak, F.B. Postural control deficits in people with fibromyalgia: A pilot study. Arthritis Res. Ther. 2011, 13, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Meireles, S.A.; Antero, D.C.; Kulczycki, M.M.; Skare, T.L. Prevalence of falls in fibromyalgia patients. Acta Ortop. Bras. 2014, 22, 163–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  14. Lomas-Vega, R.; Rodríguez-Almagro, D.; Peinado-Rubia, A.B.; Zagalaz-Anula, N.; Molina, F.; Obrero-Gaitán, E.; Ibáñez-Vera, A.J.; Osuna-Pérez, M.C. Joint Assessment of Equilibrium and Neuromotor Function: A Validation Study in Patients with Fibromyalgia. Diagnostics 2020, 10, 1057. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Rasouli, O.; Stensdotter, A.-K.; Van der Meer, A.L.H. TauG-guidance of dynamic balance control during gait initiation in patients with chronic fatigue syndrome and fibromyalgia. Clin. Biomech. 2016, 37, 147–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Yogev-Seligmann, G.; Hausdorff, J.M.; Giladi, N. The role of executive function and attention in gait. Mov. Disord. Off. J. Mov. Disord. Soc. 2008, 23, 329–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  17. Martín-Martínez, J.P.; Villafaina, S.; Collado-Mateo, D.; Pérez-Gómez, J.; Gusi, N. Effects of 24-week exergame intervention on physical function under single-and dual-task conditions in fibromyalgia: A randomized controlled trial. Scand. J. Med. Sci. Sports 2019, 29, 1610–1617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Leon-Llamas, J.L.; Villafaina, S.; Murillo-Garcia, A.; Collado-Mateo, D.; Domínguez-Muñoz, F.J.; Sánchez-Gómez, J.; Gusi, N. Strength assessment under dual task conditions in women with fibromyalgia: A test–retest reliability study. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 4971. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Martín-Martínez, J.P.; Collado-Mateo, D.; Domínguez-Muñoz, F.J.; Villafaina, S.; Gusi, N.; Pérez-Gómez, J. Reliability of the 30 s Chair Stand Test in Women with Fibromyalgia. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 2344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Bennell, K.; Dobson, F.; Hinman, R. Measures of physical performance assessments: Self-Paced walk test (SPWT), stair climb test (SCT), Six-Minute walk test (6MWT), chair stand test (CST), timed up & go (TUG), sock test, lift and carry test (LCT), and car task. Arthritis Care Res. 2011, 63, S350–S370. [Google Scholar]
  21. Renata, D.; Donadio, M.V.F. Timed‘Up & Go’test in children and adolescents. Rev. Paul. Pediatr. 2013, 31, 377–383. [Google Scholar]
  22. Thomas, M.A.; Fast, A. One step forward and two steps back: The dangers of walking backwards in therapy. Am. J. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 2000, 79, 459–461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Carter, V.; Jain, T.; James, J.; Cornwall, M.; Aldrich, A.; De Heer, H.D. The 3-m backwards walk and retrospective falls: Diagnostic accuracy of a novel clinical measure. J. Geriatr. Phys. Ther. 2019, 42, 249–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Fritz, N.E.; Worstell, A.M.; Kloos, A.D.; Siles, A.B.; White, S.E.; Kegelmeyer, D.A. Backward walking measures are sensitive to age-related changes in mobility and balance. Gait Posture 2013, 37, 593–597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Laufer, Y. Effect of age on characteristics of forward and backward gait at preferred and accelerated walking speed. J. Gerontol. Ser. A Biol. Sci. Med. Sci. 2005, 60, 627–632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Kocaman, A.A.; Arslan, S.A.; Uğurlu, K.; Kırmacı, Z.İ.K.; Keskin, E.D. Validity and Reliability of The 3-Meter Backward Walk Test in Individuals with Stroke. J. Stroke Cerebrovasc. Dis. 2021, 30, 105462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Özden, F.; Özkeskin, M.; Bakırhan, S.; Şahin, S. The test–retest reliability and concurrent validity of the 3-m backward walk test and 50-ft walk test in community-dwelling older adults. Ir. J. Med. Sci. 2021, 191, 921–928. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Kirmaci, Z.İ.K.; Adiguzel, H.; Erel, S.; Neyal, A.M.; Neyal, A.; Ergun, N. Validity and reliability of the 3-meter backward walk test in patients with multiple sclerosis. Mult. Scler. Relat. Disord. 2022, 63, 103842. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Bilek, F.; Demir, C.F. Validity and reliability of the 3-meter backward walk test in mildly disabled persons with multiple sclerosis. Mult. Scler. Relat. Disord. 2022, 58, 103532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Nalbant, A.; Unver, B.; Karatosun, V. Test–retest reliability of the L-Test in patients with advanced knee osteoarthritis. Physiother. Theory Pract. 2021, 38, 2983–2987. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Juan, I.P.; Ustárroz, J.T.; Sala, M.G. Paradigmas de ejecución dual: Aspectos conceptuales. Rev. Neurol. 2021, 72, 357–367. [Google Scholar]
  32. Villafaina, S.; Collado-Mateo, D.; Domínguez-Muñoz, F.J.; Fuentes-García, J.P.; Gusi, N. Impact of adding a cognitive task while performing physical fitness tests in women with fibromyalgia: A cross-sectional descriptive study. Medicine 2018, 97, e13791. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Villafaina, S.; Polero, P.; Collado-Mateo, D.; Fuentes-García, J.P.; Gusi, N. Impact of adding a simultaneous cognitive task in the elbow’s range of movement during arm curl test in women with fibromyalgia. Clin. Biomech. 2019, 65, 110–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Sempere-Rubio, N.; López-Pascual, J.; Aguilar-Rodríguez, M.; Cortés-Amador, S.; Espí-López, G.; Villarrasa-Sapiña, I.; Serra-Añó, P. Characterization of postural control impairment in women with fibromyalgia. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0196575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  35. Wolfe, F.; Clauw, D.J.; Fitzcharles, M.-A.; Goldenberg, D.L.; Häuser, W.; Katz, R.L.; Mease, P.J.; Russell, A.S.; Russell, I.J.; Walitt, B. 2016 Revisions to the 2010/2011 fibromyalgia diagnostic criteria. Semin. Arthritis Rheum. 2016, 46, 319–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Salgueiro, M.; García-Leiva, J.M.; Ballesteros, J.; Hidalgo, J.; Molina, R.; Calandre, E.P. Validation of a Spanish version of the revised fibromyalgia impact questionnaire (FIQR). Health Qual. Life Outcomes 2013, 11, 132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  37. Podsiadlo, D.; Richardson, S. The timed “Up & Go”: A test of basic functional mobility for frail elderly persons. J. Am. Geriatr. Soc. 1991, 39, 142–148. [Google Scholar]
  38. Adsuar, J.C.; Olivares, P.R.; Parraca, J.A.; Hernández-Mocholí, M.A.; Gusi, N. Applicability and test-retest reliability of isokinetic shoulder abduction and adduction in women fibromyalgia patients. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 2013, 94, 444–450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Carbonell-Baeza, A.; Alvarez-Gallardo, I.; Segura-Jiménez, V.; Castro-Pinero, J.; Ruiz, J.; Delgado-Fernández, M.; Aparicio, V. Reliability and feasibility of physical fitness tests in female fibromyalgia patients. Int. J. Sports Med. 2015, 36, 157–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Weir, J.P. Quantifying test-retest reliability using the intraclass correlation coefficient and the SEM. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2005, 19, 231–240. [Google Scholar]
  41. Koo, T.K.; Li, M.Y. A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. J. Chiropr. Med. 2016, 15, 155–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Bland, J.M.; Altman, D. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986, 327, 307–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Cohen, J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Social Sciences; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Mahwah, NJ, USA, 1988. [Google Scholar]
  44. Villafaina, S.; Gusi, N.; Rodriguez-Generelo, S.; Martin-Gallego, J.d.D.; Fuentes-García, J.P.; Collado-Mateo, D. Influence of a cell-phone conversation on balance performance in women with fibromyalgia: A cross-sectional descriptive study. BioMed Res. Int. 2019, 2019, 5132802. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  45. Radunović, G.; Veličković, Z.; Rašić, M.; Janjić, S.; Marković, V.; Radovanović, S. Assessment of gait in patients with fibromyalgia during motor and cognitive dual task walking: A cross-sectional study. Adv. Rheumatol. 2021, 61, 53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Unver, B.; Sevik, K.; Yarar, H.A.; Unver, F.; Karatosun, V. Reliability of 3-m backward walk test in patients with primary total knee arthroplasty. J. Knee Surg. 2020, 33, 589–592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Mezhov, V.; Guymer, E.; Littlejohn, G. Central Sensitivity and Fibromyalgia. Intern. Med. J. 2021, 51, 1990–1998. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Estévez-López, F.; Segura-Jiménez, V.; Álvarez-Gallardo, I.C.; Borges-Cosic, M.; Pulido-Martos, M.; Carbonell-Baeza, A.; Aparicio, V.A.; Geenen, R.; Delgado-Fernández, M. Adaptation profiles comprising objective and subjective measures in fibromyalgia: The al-Ándalus project. Rheumatology 2017, 56, 2015–2024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Doerr, J.M.; Fischer, S.; Nater, U.M.; Strahler, J. Influence of stress systems and physical activity on different dimensions of fatigue in female fibromyalgia patients. J. Psychosom. Res. 2017, 93, 55–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  50. Carbonell-Baeza, A.; Aparicio, V.A.; Sjöström, M.; Ruiz, J.R.; Delgado-Fernández, M. Pain and functional capacity in female fibromyalgia patients. Pain Med. 2011, 12, 1667–1675. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  51. De Gier, M.; Peters, M.L.; Vlaeyen, J.W. Fear of pain, physical performance, and attentional processes in patients with fibromyalgia. Pain 2003, 104, 121–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Kalfon, T.B.-O.; Gal, G.; Shorer, R.; Ablin, J.N. Cognitive functioning in fibromyalgia: The central role of effort. J. Psychosom. Res. 2016, 87, 30–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Streiner, D.L.; Norman, G.R.; Cairney, J. Health Measurement Scales: A Practical Guide to Their Development and Use; Oxford University Press: Oxford, MI, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  54. Dutil, É.; Bottari, C.; Auger, C. Test-retest reliability of a measure of independence in everyday activities: The ADL profile. Occup. Ther. Int. 2017, 2017, 3014579. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  55. Collado-Mateo, D.; Madeira, P.; Dominguez-Muñoz, F.J.; Villafaina, S.; Tomas-Carus, P.; Parraca, J.A. The automatic assessment of strength and mobility in older adults: A test-retest reliability study. Medicina 2019, 55, 270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  56. Kear, B.M.; Guck, T.P.; McGaha, A.L. Timed Up and Go (TUG) test: Normative reference values for ages 20 to 59 years and relationships with physical and mental health risk factors. J. Prim. Care Community Health 2017, 8, 9–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  57. Bohannon, R.W. Reference values for the timed up and go test: A descriptive meta-analysis. J. Geriatr. Phys. Ther. 2006, 29, 64–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  58. Hoogkamer, W.; Meyns, P.; Duysens, J. Steps forward in understanding backward gait: From basic circuits to rehabilitation. Exerc. Sport Sci. Rev. 2014, 42, 23–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Núñez-Fuentes, D.; Obrero-Gaitán, E.; Zagalaz-Anula, N.; Ibáñez-Vera, A.J.; Achalandabaso-Ochoa, A.; López-Ruiz, M.d.C.; Rodríguez-Almagro, D.; Lomas-Vega, R. Alteration of Postural Balance in Patients with Fibromyalgia Syndrome—A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Diagnostics 2021, 11, 127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Maritz, C.A.; Pigman, J.; Grävare Silbernagel, K.; Crenshaw, J. Effects of Backward Walking Training on Balance, Mobility, and Gait in Community-Dwelling Older Adults. Act. Adapt. Aging 2020, 45, 202–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Jcm 12 00212 g001 550
Figure 1. (a) differences between test and retest vs. the mean of the two measurements under the single condition using a stopwatch; (b) differences between test and retest vs. the mean of the two measurements under the single condition using a Chronopic; (c) differences between test and retest vs. the mean of the two measurements under the dual-task condition using a stopwatch; and (d) differences between test and retest vs. the mean of the two measurements under the dual-task condition using a Chronopic; (e) differences between stopwatch and Chronopic vs. the mean of the two measurements under the single condition in test; (f) differences between stopwatch and Chronopic vs. the mean of the two measurements under the single condition in retest; (g) differences between stopwatch and Chronopic vs. the mean of the two measurements under the dual-task condition in test; and (h) differences between stopwatch and Chronopic vs. the mean of the two measurements under the dual-task condition in retest.
Figure 1. (a) differences between test and retest vs. the mean of the two measurements under the single condition using a stopwatch; (b) differences between test and retest vs. the mean of the two measurements under the single condition using a Chronopic; (c) differences between test and retest vs. the mean of the two measurements under the dual-task condition using a stopwatch; and (d) differences between test and retest vs. the mean of the two measurements under the dual-task condition using a Chronopic; (e) differences between stopwatch and Chronopic vs. the mean of the two measurements under the single condition in test; (f) differences between stopwatch and Chronopic vs. the mean of the two measurements under the single condition in retest; (g) differences between stopwatch and Chronopic vs. the mean of the two measurements under the dual-task condition in test; and (h) differences between stopwatch and Chronopic vs. the mean of the two measurements under the dual-task condition in retest.
Jcm 12 00212 g001
Table
Table 1. Descriptive characteristics of the participants.
Table 1. Descriptive characteristics of the participants.
Variables (N = 21)Mean (SD)
Age (years)52.48 (5.99)
Height (cm)160.10 (0.07)
Weight (kg)73.50 (14.37)
BMI (kg/m2)28.67 (5.53)
FIQR59.68 (22.07)
FIQR-Function16.06 (7.74)
FIQR-Overall impact10.71 (6.90)
FIQR-Symptoms32.90 (9.77)
Falls in the last six months (number)0.95 (1.20)
Abbreviations: N, sample; SD, standard deviation; BMI, body mass index, FIQR, Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire Revised.
Table
Table 2. Reliability of the 3MBWT under single and dual-task conditions.
Table 2. Reliability of the 3MBWT under single and dual-task conditions.
Variables TestRetestICC (95% CI)SEM%SEMMDC%MDC
3MBWT (s)Stopwatch2.90 (0.87)2.85 (1.13)0.71 (0.283–0.882)0.5418.731.4951.92
Chronopic2.80 (0.88)2.75 (1.09)0.85 (0.619–0.937)0.3813.751.0638.11
3MBWT DT (s)Stopwatch3.21 (0.95)2.81 (1.10)0.89 (0.718–0.954)0.3411.290.9431.31
Chronopic3.06 (1.03)2.90 (1.03)0.93 (0.817–0.970)0.279.140.7625.35
Abbreviations: 3MBWT, 3 m backward test; s, seconds; SD, standard deviation; ICC, intraclass correlation coefficient; CI, confidence interval; SEM, standard error of measurement; MDC, minimal detectable change; DT, dual-task.
Table
Table 3. Reliability of the 3MBWT under single and dual-task conditions using stopwatch and Chronopic in the test and retest.
Table 3. Reliability of the 3MBWT under single and dual-task conditions using stopwatch and Chronopic in the test and retest.
Variables Stopwatch
Mean (SD)		Chronopic
Mean (SD)		ICC (95% CI)
3MBWT (s)Test2.90 (0.87)2.80 (0.88)0.92 (0.811–0.969)
Retest2.85 (1.13)2.75 (1.09)0.974 (0.937–0.990)
3MBWT DT (s)Test3.21 (0.95)3.06 (1.03)0.91 (0.779–0.964)
Retest2.81 (1.10)2.90 (1.03)0.974 (0.937–0.990)
Abbreviations: 3MBWT, 3 m backward test; s, seconds; SD, standard deviation; ICC, intraclass correlation coefficient; CI, confidence interval; DT, dual-task.
Table
Table 4. Concurrent validity between 3MBWT and TUG under single and dual-task conditions, in test and retests, with stopwatch and Chronopic.
Table 4. Concurrent validity between 3MBWT and TUG under single and dual-task conditions, in test and retests, with stopwatch and Chronopic.
Stopwatch
Test ConditionRetest Condition
VariablesTUGTUG
Single3MBWT0.735 ***0.831 ***
Dual3MBWT0.679 ***0.875 ***
Chronopic
Test ConditionRetest Condition
VariablesTUGTUG
Single3MBWT0.834 ***0.794 ***
Dual3MBWT0.845 ***0.906 ***
Abbreviations: 3MBWT, 3-m backward test; TUG, timed up and go. *** p-value < 0.001.
Table
Table 5. Correlation between 3MBWT and FIQR under single and dual-task conditions, in test and retest, with stopwatch and Chronopic.
Table 5. Correlation between 3MBWT and FIQR under single and dual-task conditions, in test and retest, with stopwatch and Chronopic.
Stopwatch
VariablesFIQRFIQR-FunctionFIQR-Overall impactFIQR-Symptoms
Single3MBWT (test)0.488 *0.2730.488 *0.543 *
3MBWT (retest)0.659 ***0.461 *0.652 **0.663 ***
Dual3MBWT (test)0.527 *0.3960.513 *0.514 *
3MBWT (retest)0.614 ***0.3890.630 **0.634 **
Chronopic
VariablesFIQRFIQR-FunctionFIQR-Overall impactFIQR-Symptoms
Single3MBWT (test)0.654 ***0.448 *0.558 **0.729 ***
3MBWT (retest)0.577 ***0.3250.624 **0.604 **
Dual3MBWT (test)0.532 *0.3560.444 *0.607 **
3MBWT (retest)0.636 ***0.3940.631 **0.679 ***
Abbreviations: 3MBWT, 3-m backward test; FIQR, fibromyalgia impact questionnaire revised. * p-value < 0.05; ** p-value < 0.01; *** p-value < 0.001.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Leon-Llamas, J.L.; Villafaina, S.; Murillo-Garcia, A.; Domínguez-Muñoz, F.J.; Gusi, N. Test–Retest Reliability and Concurrent Validity of the 3 m Backward Walk Test under Single and Dual-Task Conditions in Women with Fibromyalgia. J. Clin. Med. 2023, 12, 212. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12010212

AMA Style

Leon-Llamas JL, Villafaina S, Murillo-Garcia A, Domínguez-Muñoz FJ, Gusi N. Test–Retest Reliability and Concurrent Validity of the 3 m Backward Walk Test under Single and Dual-Task Conditions in Women with Fibromyalgia. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2023; 12(1):212. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12010212

Chicago/Turabian Style

Leon-Llamas, Juan Luis, Santos Villafaina, Alvaro Murillo-Garcia, Francisco Javier Domínguez-Muñoz, and Narcis Gusi. 2023. "Test–Retest Reliability and Concurrent Validity of the 3 m Backward Walk Test under Single and Dual-Task Conditions in Women with Fibromyalgia" Journal of Clinical Medicine 12, no. 1: 212. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12010212

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop