6533b7d4fe1ef96bd1261e72

RESEARCH PRODUCT

Cross validation of the 1-mile walking test for men with mental retardation.

Steve B. DownsPauli RintalaJeffrey A. MccubbinSusan D. Fox

subject

AdultMalePopulationPhysical fitnessPhysical Therapy Sports Therapy and RehabilitationWalkingCross-validationCardiovascular Physiological PhenomenaOxygen ConsumptionIntellectual DisabilityStatisticsHumansOrthopedics and Sports MedicineTreadmilleducationMathematicsMileeducation.field_of_studyWalking testbusiness.industryRespirationReproducibility of ResultsCardiorespiratory fitnessStandard errorPhysical FitnessExercise Testbusiness

description

The purpose of this study was to cross validate the equation developed by Rintala et al. (1992) to estimate the cardiorespiratory efficiency of men with mental retardation (MR). Subjects were 19 healthy men (27 ± 8 yr) with MR (IQ = 58 ± 12). Following familiarization, a graded maximal treadmill test and two 1-mile walk tests (Rockport Fitness Walking Test, RFWT) were administered. The peak VO 2 value was the criterion measure used to cross validate the equation. The equation was: Peak VO 2 (ml.kg -1 .min -1 ) = 101.92 - 2.356 (MILE) -0.420 (WEIGHT). The mean differences were 2.04 (MILE 1 )(P = 0.02) and 2.43 (MILE 2 )(P = 0.004) ml.kg -1 .min -1 . A significant positive correlation was found between measured peak VO 2 and predicted peak VO 2 both 1-mile walks (r = 0.91 and 0.93). For both predicted peak VO 2 values, the Total Error (TE) was greater than standard error of estimate (SEE), indicating a systematic difference between the measured and predicted peak VO 2 values. Moreover, only 58% of the measured peak VO 2 values fell within the prespecified range. Test-retest reliability of RFWT was R = 0.96. However, the prediction equation underestimated the actual cardiorespiratory levels in 74% and 79% of the subjects. depending on the trial. Because the equation developed in this research underestimates the measured VO 2 values for the majority of these subjects, the test is probably not statistically valid, even if reliable, and the prediction formula needs to be revised for this population.

10.1097/00005768-199701000-00019https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9000166