The reliability, validity, and responsiveness of tests used to assess the effects of power training in older adults: a systematic review

Figures & data

Figure 1. PRISMA flowchart of search and selection process.

A flowchart that details the number of articles that were identified, screened, evaluated using eligibility criteria, and included in the review.

Table 1. Characteristics of the included studies.

Study #	Author and year	COSMIN domain	Measurement property	COSMIN RoB rating
1	Adell et al. (2013) [23]	Reliability	Reliability	Doubtful
			Measurement error	Doubtful
2	Alfonso-Rosa et al. (2014) [24]	Reliability	Reliability	Doubtful
			Measurement error	Doubtful
3	Amarante do Nascimento et al. (2013) [25]	Reliability	Reliability	Doubtful
			Measurement error	Doubtful
4	Barbalho et al. (2018) [26]	Reliability	Reliability Measurement error	Doubtful
5	Batting et al. (2019) [27]	Reliability	Measurement error	Inadequate
		Validity	Construct validity: comparison with another instrument	Inadequate
6	Beauchamp et al. (2012) [28]	Reliability	Reliability Measurement error	Adequate
7	Beninato et al. (2016) [29]	Validity	Structural validity	Adequate
8	Bergamin et al. (2017) [30]	Reliability	Reliability	Doubtful
9	Bodilsen et al. (2015) [31]	Reliability	Reliability	Adequate
			Measurement error	Adequate
10	Brooks et al. (2006) [32]	Validity	Construct validity: comparison with another instrument	Inadequate
		Responsiveness	Responsiveness	Doubtful
11	Chan et al. (2020) [33]	Reliability	Reliability	Doubtful
		Validity	Construct validity: comparison with another instrument	Inadequate
12	Choi et al. (2014) [34]	Reliability	Reliability	Very good
			Measurement error	Very good
13	Connelly et al. (1996) [35]	Reliability	Reliability	Inadequate
14	Cress et al. (1996) [36]	Reliability	Reliability	Inadequate
			Internal consistency	Very good
		Validity	Construct validity: comparison with another instrument	Doubtful
15	Ditroilo et al. (2011) [37]	Reliability	Reliability	Doubtful
			Measurement error	Doubtful
16	Ellis et al. (2019) [38]	Reliability	Reliability	Doubtful
			Measurement error	Doubtful
17	Fonseca et al. (2014) [39]	Reliability	Reliability	Very good
			Measurement error	Adequate
18	Freire et al. (2012) [40]	Reliability	Reliability	Doubtful
19	Frykholm et al. (2019) [41]	Reliability	Reliability	Very good
			Measurement error	Very good
20	Galhardas et al. (2020) [42]	Reliability	Reliability	Doubtful
			Measurement error	Doubtful
21	Germanou et al. (2007) [43]	Reliability	Reliability	Doubtful
			Measurement error	Doubtful
22	Goldberg et al. (2012) [44]	Reliability	Reliability	Inadequate
			Measurement error	Inadequate
		Validity	Construct validity: comparison with another instrument	Very good
23	Gómez et al. (2013) [45]	Reliability	Reliability	Doubtful
		Validity	Structural validity	Doubtful
24	Hansen et al. (2018) [46]	Reliability	Reliability	Very good
			Measurement error	Very good
25	Hernandes et al. (2011) [47]	Reliability	Reliability	Doubtful
			Measurement error	Doubtful
26	Hoeymans et al. (1997) [48]	Reliability	Reliability	Doubtful
27	Hwang et al. (2016) [49]	Reliability	Reliability	Inadequate
			Measurement error	Inadequate
		Validity	Construct validity: comparison with another instrument	Inadequate
28	Işik et al. (2015) [50]	Reliability	Reliability	Inadequate
		Validity	Construct validity: comparison with another instrument	Inadequate
29	Jenkins et al. (2017) [51]	Reliability	Reliability	Doubtful
			Measurement error	Doubtful
30	Kristensen et al. (2019) [52]	Reliability	Reliability	Doubtful
			Measurement error	Doubtful
31	Labadessa et al. (2016) [53]	Reliability	Reliability	Doubtful
			Measurement error	Doubtful
32	LeBrasseur et al. (2008) [54]	Reliability	Reliability	Inadequate
			Measurement error	Inadequate
33	Lin et al. (2004) [55]	Reliability	Reliability	Inadequate
			Construct validity: comparison with another instrument	Adequate
		Responsiveness	Responsiveness	Doubtful
34	Madsen et al. (1996) [56]	Reliability	Measurement error	Inadequate
35	Marques et al. (2016) [57]	Reliability	Reliability	Doubtful
			Measurement error	Doubtful
36	Marques et al. (2021) [58]	Validity	Structural validity	Adequate
			Construct validity: comparison with another instrument	Doubtful
37	McLay et al. (2020) [59]	Validity	Construct validity: comparison with another instrument	Adequate
38	Medina-Mirapeix et al. (2016) [60]	Reliability	Reliability	Doubtful
			Measurement error	Doubtful
39	Medina-Mirapeix et al. (2018) [61]	Reliability	Reliability	Inadequate
			Measurement error	Inadequate
		Validity	Construct validity: comparison with another instrument	Inadequate
40	Mkacher et al. (2017) [62]	Reliability	Reliability	Doubtful
			Measurement error	Doubtful
41	Morris-Chatta et al. (1994) [63]	Reliability	Reliability	Inadequate
42	Nunes et al. (2020) [64]	Reliability	Reliability	Inadequate
			Measurement error	Inadequate
		Validity	Construct validity: comparison with another instrument	Very good
43	Ordway et al. (2006) [65]	Reliability	Measurement error	Doubtful
44	Ostchega et al. (2000) [66]	Reliability	Reliability	Inadequate
45	Özden et al. (2020) [67]	Reliability	Reliability	Inadequate
			Measurement error	Inadequate
		Validity	Construct validity: comparison with another instrument	Inadequate
46	Parraca et al. (2022) [68]	Reliability	Reliability Measurement error	Doubtful Doubtful
47	Peel et al. (2001) [69]	Reliability	Reliability	Doubtful
48	Phillips et al. (2004) [70]	Reliability	Measurement error	Doubtful
49	Rikli et al. (1998) [71]	Reliability	Reliability	Doubtful
		Validity	Construct validity: comparison with another instrument	Very good
50	Rockwood et al. (2000) [72]	Reliability	Reliability	Inadequate
		Validity	Construct validity: comparison with another instrument	Inadequate
51	Rodrigues et al. (2023) [73]	Reliability	Reliability	Inadequate
52	Rolenz et al. (2016) [74]	Validity	Construct validity: comparison with another instrument	Adequate
53	Rydwik et al. (2007) [75]	Reliability	Reliability	Doubtful
			Measurement error	Doubtful
54	Saint-Maurice et al. (2020) [76]	Reliability	Reliability	Doubtful
55	Schaubert et al. (2005) [77]	Reliability	Reliability	Doubtful
			Measurement error	Doubtful
56	Schaubert et al. (2005) [78]	Reliability	Reliability	Doubtful
		Validity	Construct validity: comparison with another instrument	Adequate
57	Schroeder et al. (2007) [79]	Reliability	Reliability	Doubtful
			Measurement error	Doubtful
58	Schwenk et al. (2012) [80]	Reliability	Reliability	Doubtful
			Measurement error	Doubtful
59	Sherwood et al. (2019) [81]	Validity	Construct validity: comparison with another instrument	Inadequate
60	Suwit et al. (2020) [82]	Reliability	Reliability	Very good
			Measurement error	Very good
61	Suzuki et al. (2019) [83]	Reliability	Reliability	Doubtful
			Measurement error	Inadequate
62	Symons et al. (2004) [84]	Reliability	Reliability	Inadequate
			Measurement error	Inadequate
63	Symons et al. (2005) [85]	Reliability	Reliability	Inadequate
			Measurement error	Inadequate
64	Tolk et al. (2019) [86]	Reliability	Reliability	Doubtful
		Validity	Construct validity: comparison with another instrument	very good
		Responsiveness	Responsiveness	Very good
65	Tolk et al. (2019) [87]	Reliability	Reliability	Doubtful
		Validity	Construct validity: comparison with another instrument	Inadequate
		Responsiveness	Responsiveness	Inadequate
66	Topp et al. (1994) [88]	Reliability	Reliability	Doubtful
67	Uszko-Lencer et al. (2017) [89]	Reliability	Reliability	Doubtful
		Validity	Construct validity: comparison with another instrument	Inadequate
68	Van Driessche et al. (2018) [90]	Reliability	Reliability	Doubtful
			Measurement error	Doubtful
69	van Iersel et al. (2008) [91]	Reponsiveness	Responsiveness	Doubtful
70	Verdijk et al. (2009) [92]	Validity	Construct validity: comparison with another instrument	Adequate
71	Wallmann et al. (2013) [93]	Reliability	Reliability	Doubtful
72	Webber et al. (2010) [94]	Reliability	Reliability	Doubtful
			Measurement error	Doubtful
73	Whitney et al. (2005) [95]	Validity	Construct validity: comparison with another instrument	Adequate
74	Wrisley et al. (2010) [96]	Validity	Construct validity: comparison with another instrument	Very good

Figure 2. Previously-identified tests used to evaluate power training and tests included in the present study.

A list of 24 tests used to evaluate power training identified in a previous systematic review and a list of 15 tests that were included in the present study.

Table 2. Rating of measurement properties using terwee’s criteria.

		Reliability			Validity					Responsiveness
#	Measurement instrument	Reliability	Measurement error	Internal consistency	Content validity	Structural validity	Construct validity*	Cross-cultural validity	Criterion validity	Responsiveness
1a	1RM bench/chest press	+ + +	?	N/A	N/A	?	+	N/A	N/A	?
1b	1RM leg/knee flexion	+ + +	?	N/A	N/A	?	?	N/A	N/A	?
1c	1RM leg/knee extension	+	?	N/A	N/A	?	+ +	N/A	N/A	?
1d	1RM leg press	+ + +	?	N/A	N/A	?	+	N/A	N/A	?
1e	1RM arm curl	+	?	N/A	N/A	?	?	N/A	N/A	?
1f	1RM preacher curl	+	?	N/A	N/A	?	+	N/A	N/A	?
1g	1RM lat pull	+	?	N/A	N/A	?	?	N/A	N/A	?
1h	1RM pull down machine	?	?	N/A	N/A	?	?	N/A	N/A	?
2a	Isometric ankle flexion	+	?	N/A	N/A	?	?	N/A	N/A	?
2b	Isometric ankle extension	?	?	N/A	N/A	?	?	N/A	N/A	?
2c	Isometric knee flexion	?	?	N/A	N/A	?	?	N/A	N/A	?
2d	Isometric knee extension	+ + +	?	N/A	N/A	?	?	N/A	N/A	?
2e	Isotonic ankle flexion	+	?	N/A	N/A	?	?	N/A	N/A	?
2f	Isokinetic ankle flexion	+ + −	?	N/A	N/A	?	?	N/A	N/A	?
2g	Isokinetic ankle extension	?	?	N/A	N/A	?	?	N/A	N/A	?
2h	Isokinetic leg/knee flexion	+ + +	?	N/A	N/A	?	?	N/A	N/A	?
2i	Isokinetic leg/knee extension	+ + +	?	N/A	N/A	?	+	N/A	N/A	?
3	Short Physical Performance Battery	+ + +	?	N/A	N/A	?	?	N/A	N/A	?
4	Continuous Scale Physical Functional Performance	+	?	+	N/A	?	?	N/A	N/A	?
5	5-times Sit to Stand	+ + +	?	N/A	N/A	?	?	N/A	N/A	?
6	30-sec Sit to Stand	+ + +	?	N/A	N/A	?	?	N/A	N/A	–
7	Countermovement jump	+ + +	?	N/A	N/A	?	?	N/A	N/A	?
8	6-min Walk Test	+ + +	?	N/A	N/A	?	+	N/A	N/A	?
9	10-meter Walk Test	+ + +	?	N/A	N/A	?	+	N/A	N/A	?
10	Timed Up and Go	+ + +	?	N/A	N/A	?	+ + -	N/A	N/A	?
11	8-foot Up and Go	+	?	N/A	N/A	?	?	N/A	N/A	?
12	Functional Gait Assessment	?	?	N/A	N/A	+	+ +	N/A	N/A	?
13	Four Square Step Test	+	?	N/A	N/A	?	+ −	N/A	N/A	?
14	Stair Climb Test	+ + +	?	N/A	N/A	?	?	N/A	N/A	–
15	Gymaware power tool	?	?	N/A	N/A	?	+	N/A	N/A	?

The level of evidence was rated as ‘strong’ when a performance test or tool scored three positives (+++) or three negatives (−−), as ‘moderate’ with 2 positives (++) or 2 negatives (−), as ‘limited’ with one positive (+) or negative (−), as ‘conflicting’ with a mixture of positives (+) and negatives (−), and as ‘unknown’ when no studies were available. Abbreviations used: 1RM: 1-repetition maximum.

Adell E, Wehmhörner S, Rydwik E. The test-retest reliability of 10 meters maximal walking speed in older people living in a residential care unit. J Geriatr Phys Ther. 2013;36(2):74–77. doi: 10.1519/JPT.0b013e318264b8ed.

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

Alfonso-Rosa RM, Del Pozo-Cruz B, Del Pozo-Cruz J, et al. Test-retest reliability and minimal detectable change scores for fitness assessment in older adults with type 2 diabetes. Rehabil Nurs. 2014;39(5):260–268. doi: 10.1002/rnj.111.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Nascimento MADO, Januario RSB, Gerage AM, et al. Familiarization and reliability of one repetition maximum strength testing in older women. J Aging Health. 2013;27:1636–1642.

 Google Scholar

Barbalho M, Gentil P, Raiol R, et al. High 1RM tests reproducibility and validity are not dependent on training experience, muscle group tested or strength level in older women. Sports. 2018;6(4):171. doi: 10.3390/sports6040171.

 Google Scholar

Batting M, Barker KL. Reliability and validity of the Four Square Step Test in patients with hip osteoarthritis before and after total hip replacement. Physiotherapy. 2019;105(2):244–253. doi: 10.1016/j.physio.2018.07.014.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Beauchamp MK, Hao Q, Kuspinar A, et al. Reliability and minimal detectable change values for performance-based measures of physical functioning in the canadian longitudinal study on aging. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2021;76(11):2030–2038. doi: 10.1093/gerona/glab175.

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

Beninato M, Ludlow LH. The functional gait assessment in older adults: validation through Rasch modeling. Phys Ther. 2016;96(4):456–468. doi: 10.2522/ptj.20150167.

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

Bergamin M, Gobbo S, Bullo V, et al. Reliability of a device for the knee and ankle isometric and isokinetic strength testing in older adults. Muscles Ligaments Tendons J. 2017;7(2):323–330. doi: 10.11138/mltj/2017.7.2.323.

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

Bodilsen AC, Juul-Larsen HG, Petersen J, et al. Feasibility and inter-rater reliability of physical performance measures in acutely admitted older medical patients. PLOS One. 2015;10(2):e0118248. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0118248.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Brooks D, Davis AM, Naglie G. Validity of 3 physical performance measures in inpatient geriatric rehabilitation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2006;87(1):105–110. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2005.08.109.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Chan WLS, Pin TW. Reliability, validity and minimal detectable change of 2-min walk test and 10-m walk test in frail older adults receiving day care and residential care. Aging Clin Exp Res. 2020;32(4):597–604. doi: 10.1007/s40520-019-01255-x.

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

Choi YM, Dobson F, Martin J, et al. Interrater and intrarater reliability of common clinical standing balance tests for people with hip osteoarthritis. Phys Ther. 2014;94(5):696–704. doi: 10.2522/ptj.20130266.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Connelly DM, Stevenson TJ, Vandervoort AA. Between- and within-rater reliability of walking tests in a frail elderly population. Physiotherapy Canada. 1996;48:47–51.

 Google Scholar

Cress ME, Buchner DM, Questad KA, et al. Continuous-scale physical functional performance in healthy older adults: a validation study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1996;77(12):1243–1250. doi: 10.1016/s0003-9993(96)90187-2.

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

Ditroilo M, Forte R, McKeown D, et al. Intra- and inter-session reliability of vertical jump performance in healthy middle-aged and older men and women. J Sports Sci. 2011;29(15):1675–1682. doi: 10.1080/02640414.2011.614270.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Ellis R, Holland AE, Dodd K, et al. Reliability of one-repetition maximum performance in people with chronic heart failure. Disabil Rehabil. 2019;41(14):1706–1710. doi: 10.1080/09638288.2018.1443160.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

F AA, G CLA, C MCB, et al. Reproducibility of a test for the functional evaluation of dynamic balance and agility in elderly people. Iatreia. 2014;27:290–298.

 Google Scholar

Cremonese C, Freire C, Meyer A, et al. Pesticide exposure and adverse pregnancy events, Southern Brazil, 1996-2000. Cad Saude Publica. 2012;28(7):1263–1272. doi: 10.1590/s0102-311x2012000700005.

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

Frykholm E, Géphine S, Saey D, et al. Inter-day test–retest reliability and feasibility of isokinetic, isometric, and isotonic measurements to assess quadriceps endurance in people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a multicenter study. Chron Respir Dis. 2019;16:1479973118816497. doi: 10.1177/1479973118816497.

 Google Scholar

Galhardas L, Raimundo A, Marmeleira J. Test-retest reliability of upper-limb proprioception and balance tests in older nursing home residents. Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2020;89:104079. doi: 10.1016/j.archger.2020.104079.

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

Germanou E, Beneka A, Malliou P, et al. Reproducibility of concentric isokinetic strength of the knee extensors and flexors in individuals with mild and moderate osteoarthritis of the knee. IES. 2007;15(3):151–164. doi: 10.3233/IES-2007-0261.

 Google Scholar

Goldberg A, Chavis M, Watkins J, et al. The five-times-sit-to-stand test: validity, reliability and detectable change in older females. Aging Clin Exp Res. 2012;24(4):339–344. doi: 10.1007/BF03325265.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Gómez Montes JF, Curcio CL, Alvarado B, et al. Validity and reliability of the short physical performance battery (SPPB): a pilot study on mobility in the Colombian Andes. Colomb Med. 2013;44:165–171. doi: 10.25100/cm.v44i3.1181.

 Google Scholar

Hansen H, Beyer N, Frølich A, et al. Intra-and inter-rater reproducibility of the 6-minute walk test and the 30-second sit-to-stand test in patients with severe and very severe COPD. Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis. 2018;13:3447–3457. doi: 10.2147/COPD.S174248.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Hernandes NA, Wouters EFM, Meijer K, et al. Reproducibility of 6-minute walking test in patients with COPD. Eur Respir J. 2011;38(2):261–267. doi: 10.1183/09031936.00142010.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Hoeymans N, Wouters ERCM, Feskens EJM, et al. Reproducibility of performance-based and self-reported measures of functional status. J Gerontol A. 1997;52:363–368.

 Google Scholar

Hwang R, Morris NR, Mandrusiak A, et al. Timed up and go test: a reliable and valid test in patients with chronic heart failure. J Card Fail. 2016;22(8):646–650. doi: 10.1016/j.cardfail.2015.09.018.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Isik EI, Altug F, Cavlak U. Reliability and validity of four step square test in older adults. Turk J Geriatrics. 2015;18:151–155.

 Google Scholar

Jenkins NDM, Cramer JT. Reliability and minimum detectable change for common clinical physical function tests in sarcopenic men and women. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2017;65(4):839–846. doi: 10.1111/jgs.14769.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Kristensen MT, Bloch ML, Jønsson LR, et al. Interrater reliability of the standardized Timed Up and Go Test when used in hospitalized and community-dwelling older individuals. Physiotherapy Res Intl. 2019;24(2):1–6. doi: 10.1002/pri.1769.

 Google Scholar

Labadessa IG, Arcuri JF, Sentanin AC, et al. Should the 6-minute walk test be compared when conducted by 2 different assessors in subjects with COPD? Respir Care. 2016;61(10):1323–1330. doi: 10.4187/respcare.04500.

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

LeBrasseur NK, Bhasin S, Miciek R, et al. Tests of muscle strength and physical function: reliability and discrimination of performance in younger and older men and older men with mobility limitations. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2008;56(11):2118–2123. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2008.01953.x.

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

Lin MR, Hwang HF, Hu MH, et al. Psychometric comparisons of the timed up and go, one-leg stand, functional reach, and Tinetti balance measures in community-dwelling older people. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2004;52(8):1343–1348. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2004.52366.x.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Madsen OR, Brot C. Assessment of extensor and flexor strength in the individual gonarthrotic patient: interpretation of performance changes. Clin Rheumatol. 1996;15(2):154–160. doi: 10.1007/BF02230333.

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

Marques A, Cruz J, Quina S, et al. Reliability, agreement and minimal detectable change of the Timed Up & Go and the 10-meter walk tests in older patients with COPD. COPD. 2016;13(3):279–287. doi: 10.3109/15412555.2015.1079816.

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

Marques LBF, Moreira B de S, Ocarino JdM, et al. Construct and criterion validity of the functional gait assessment–Brazil in community-dwelling older adults. Braz J Phys Ther. 2021;25(2):186–193. doi: 10.1016/j.bjpt.2020.05.008.

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

McLay R, Kirkwood RN, Kuspinar A, et al. Validity of balance and mobility screening tests for assessing fall risk in COPD. Chron Respir Dis. 2020;17:1479973120922538. doi: 10.1177/1479973120922538.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Medina-Mirapeix F, Bernabeu-Mora R, Llamazares-Herrán E, et al. Interobserver reliability of peripheral muscle strength tests and short physical performance battery in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a prospective observational study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2016;97(11):2002–2005. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2016.05.004.

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

Medina-Mirapeix F, Vivo-Fernández I, López-Cañizares J, et al. Five times sit-to-stand test in subjects with total knee replacement: reliability and relationship with functional mobility tests. Gait Posture. 2018;59:258–260. doi: 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2017.10.028.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Mkacher W, Tabka Z, Trabelsi Y. Minimal detectable change for balance measurements in patients with COPD. J Cardiopulm Rehabil Prev. 2017;37(3):223–228. doi: 10.1097/HCR.0000000000000240.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Morris-Chatta R, Buchner DM, de Lateur BJ, et al. Isokinetic testing of ankle strength in older adults: assessment of inter-rater reliability and stability of strength over six months. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1994;75(11):1213–1216. doi: 10.1016/0003-9993(94)90007-8.

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

Nunes JP, Cunha PM, Antunes M, et al. The generality of strength: relationship between different measures of muscular strength in older women. Int J Exerc Sci. 2020;13:1638–1649.

 Google Scholar

Ordway NR, Hand N, Riggs G, et al. Reliability of knee and ankle strength measures in an older adult population. J Strength Cond Res. 2006;20:82–87.

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

Ostchega Y, Harris TB, Hirsch R, et al. Reliability and prevalence of physical performance examination assessing mobility and balance in older persons in the US: data from The Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2000;48(9):1136–1141. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2000.tb04792.x.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Özden F, Coşkun G, Bakırhan S. The test-retest reliability and concurrent validity of the five times sit to stand test and step test in older adults with total hip arthroplasty. Exp Gerontol. 2020;142:111143. doi: 10.1016/j.exger.2020.111143.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Parraca JA, Adsuar JC, Domínguez-Muñoz FJ, et al. Test-retest reliability of isokinetic strength measurements in lower limbs in elderly. Biology. 2022;11(6):802. doi: 10.3390/biology11060802.

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

Peel C, Ballard D. Reproducibility of the 6-minute-walk test in older women. J Aging Phys Act. 2001;9(2):184–193. doi: 10.1123/japa.9.2.184.

 Google Scholar

Phillips WT, Batterham AM, Valenzuela JE, et al. Reliability of maximal strength testing in older adults. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2004;85(2):329–334. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2003.05.010.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Rikli RE, Jones CJ. The reliability and validity of a 6-minute walk test as a measure of physical endurance in older adults. J Aging Phys Act. 1998;6(4):363–375. doi: 10.1123/japa.6.4.363.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Rockwood K, Awalt E, Carver D, et al. Feasibility and measurement properties of the functional reach and the timed up and go tests in the Canadian study of health and aging. J Gerontol A. 2000;55:70–74.

 Google Scholar

Rodrigues F, Teixeira JE, Forte P. The reliability of the timed up and go test among portuguese elderly. Healthcare. 2023;11(7):928. doi: 10.3390/healthcare11070928.

 Google Scholar

Rolenz E, Reneker JC. Validity of the 8-Foot Up and Go, Timed Up and Go, and Activities- Specific Balance Confidence Scale in older adults with and without cognitive impairment. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2016;53(4):511–518. doi: 10.1682/JRRD.2015.03.0042.

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

Rydwik E, Karlsson C, Frändin K, et al. Muscle strength testing with one repetition maximum in the arm/shoulder for people aged 75+ − Test-retest reliability. Clin Rehabil. 2007;21(3):258–265. doi: 10.1177/0269215506072088.

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

Saint-Maurice PF, Sampson JN, Keadle SK, et al. Reproducibility of accelerometer and posture-derived measures of physical activity. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2020;52(4):876–883. doi: 10.1249/MSS.0000000000002206.

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

Schaubert K, Bohannon RW. Reliability of the sit-to-stand test over dispersed test sessions. IES. 2005;13(2):119–122. doi: 10.3233/IES-2005-0188.

 Google Scholar

Schaubert KL, Bohannon RW. Reliability and validity of three strength measures obtained from community-dwelling elderly persons. J Strength Cond Res. 2005;19:717–720.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Schroeder ET, Wang Y, Castaneda-Sceppa C, et al. Reliability of maximal voluntary muscle strength and power testing in older men. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2007;62(5):543–549. doi: 10.1093/gerona/62.5.543.

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

Schwenk M, Gogulla S, Englert S, et al. Test-retest reliability and minimal detectable change of repeated sit-to-stand analysis using one body fixed sensor in geriatric patients. Physiol Meas. 2012;33(11):1931–1946. doi: 10.1088/0967-3334/33/11/1931.

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

Sherwood JJ, Inouye C, Webb SL, et al. Reliability and validity of the sit-to-stand as a muscular power measure in older adults. J Aging Phys Act. 2020;28(3):455–466. doi: 10.1123/japa.2019-0133.

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

Suwit A, Rungtiwa K, Nipaporn T. Reliability and validity of the osteoarthritis research society international minimal core set of recommended performance-based tests of physical function in knee osteoarthritis in community-dwelling adults. Malays J Med Sci. 2020;27(2):77–89. doi: 10.21315/mjms2020.27.2.9.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Suzuki Y, Kamide N, Kitai Y, et al. Absolute reliability of measurements of muscle strength and physical performance measures in older people with high functional capacities. Eur Geriatr Med. 2019;10(5):733–740. doi: 10.1007/s41999-019-00218-9.

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

Symons TB, Vandervoort AA, Rice CL, et al. Reliability of isokinetic and isometric knee-extensor force in older women. J Aging Phys Act. 2004;12(4):525–537. doi: 10.1123/japa.12.4.525.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Symons TB, Vandervoort AA, Rice CL, et al. Reliability of a single-session isokinetic and isometric strength measurement protocol in older men. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2005;60(1):114–119. doi: 10.1093/gerona/60.1.114.

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

Tolk JJ, Janssen RPA, Prinsen CAC, et al. The OARSI core set of performance-based measures for knee osteoarthritis is reliable but not valid and responsive. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2019;27(9):2898–2909. doi: 10.1007/s00167-017-4789-y.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Tolk JJ, Janssen RPA, Prinsen CSAC, et al. Measurement properties of the OARSI core set of performance-based measures for hip osteoarthritis: a prospective cohort study on reliability, construct validity and responsiveness in 90 hip osteoarthritis patients. Acta Orthop. 2019;90(1):15–20. doi: 10.1080/17453674.2018.1539567.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Topp R, Mikesky A. Reliability of isometric and isokinetic evaluations of ankle Dorsi/plantar strength among older adults. IES. 1994;4(4):157–163. doi: 10.3233/IES-1994-4407.

 Google Scholar

Uszko-Lencer NHMK, Mesquita R, Janssen E, et al. Reliability, construct validity and determinants of 6-minute walk test performance in patients with chronic heart failure. Int J Cardiol. 2017;240:285–290. doi: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2017.02.109.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Van Driessche S, Van Roie E, Vanwanseele B, et al. Test-retest reliability of knee extensor rate of velocity and power development in older adults using the isotonic mode on a Biodex System 3 dynamometer. PLoS One. 2018;13(5):e0196838. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0196838.

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

van Iersel MB, Munneke M, Esselink RAJ, et al. Gait velocity and the Timed-Up-and-Go test were sensitive to changes in mobility in frail elderly patients. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61(2):186–191. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.04.016.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Verdijk LB, Van Loon L, Meijer K, et al. One-repetition maximum strength test represents a valid means to assess leg strength in vivo in humans. J Sports Sci. 2009;27(1):59–68. doi: 10.1080/02640410802428089.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Wallmann HW, Evans NS, Day C, et al. Interrater reliability of the five-times-sit-to-stand test. Home Health Care Manag Pract. 2013;25(1):13–17. doi: 10.1177/1084822312453047.

 Google Scholar

Webber SC, Porter MM. Reliability of ankle isometric, isotonic, and isokinetic strength and power testing in older women. Phys Ther. 2010;90(8):1165–1175. doi: 10.2522/ptj.20090394.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Whitney SL, Wrisley DM, Marchetti GF, et al. Clinical measurement of sit-to-stand performance in people with balance disorders: Validity of data for the Five-Times-Sit-to-Stand Test. Phys Ther. 2005;85(10):1034–1045. doi: 10.1093/ptj/85.10.1034.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Wrisley DM, Kumar NA. Functional gait assessment: concurrent, discriminative, and predictive validity in community-dwelling older adults. Phys Ther. 2010;90(5):761–773. doi: 10.2522/ptj.20090069.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Data availability statement

data sharing is not applicable to this article as no new data were created or analyzed in this study.