↓ Skip to main content

The validity and reliability of the four square step test in different adult populations: a systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, September 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
12 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
62 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
322 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The validity and reliability of the four square step test in different adult populations: a systematic review
Published in
Systematic Reviews, September 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13643-017-0577-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Martha Moore, Karen Barker

Abstract

The four square step test (FSST) was first validated in healthy older adults to provide a measure of dynamic standing balance and mobility. The FSST has since been used in a variety of patient populations. The purpose of this systematic review is to determine the validity and reliability of the FSST in these different adult patient populations. The literature search was conducted to highlight all the studies that measured validity and reliability of the FSST. Six electronic databases were searched including AMED, CINAHL, MEDLINE, PEDro, Web of Science and Google Scholar. Grey literature was also searched for any documents relevant to the review. Two independent reviewers carried out study selection and quality assessment. The methodological quality was assessed using the QUADAS-2 tool, which is a validated tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies, and the COSMIN four-point checklist, which contains standards for evaluating reliability studies on the measurement properties of health instruments. Fifteen studies were reviewed studying community-dwelling older adults, Parkinson's disease, Huntington's disease, multiple sclerosis, vestibular disorders, post stroke, post unilateral transtibial amputation, knee pain and hip osteoarthritis. Three of the studies were of moderate methodological quality scoring low in risk of bias and applicability for all domains in the QUADAS-2 tool. Three studies scored "fair" on the COSMIN four-point checklist for the reliability components. The concurrent validity of the FSST was measured in nine of the studies with moderate to strong correlations being found. Excellent Intraclass Correlation Coefficients were found between physiotherapists carrying out the tests (ICC = .99) with good to excellent test-retest reliability shown in nine of the studies (ICC = .73-.98). The FSST may be an effective and valid tool for measuring dynamic balance and a participants' falls risk. It has been shown to have strong correlations with other measures of balance and mobility with good reliability shown in a number of populations. However, the quality of the papers reviewed was variable with key factors, such as sample size and test set up, needing to be addressed before the tool can be confidently used in these specified populations.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 322 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 322 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 54 17%
Student > Master 53 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 35 11%
Researcher 26 8%
Student > Postgraduate 13 4%
Other 50 16%
Unknown 91 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 93 29%
Medicine and Dentistry 60 19%
Sports and Recreations 22 7%
Neuroscience 11 3%
Engineering 7 2%
Other 27 8%
Unknown 102 32%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 07 September 2018.
All research outputs
#4,072,092
of 21,343,339 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#843
of 1,851 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#71,212
of 294,705 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#4
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,343,339 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,851 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 294,705 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.