RehabMeasures Instrument
  1. Rehabilitation Measures Database
  2. Timed Backwards Walk

Timed Backwards Walk

Last Updated

Purpose

The TBW test measures balance and gait while backwards walking.

Acronym  TBW

Area of Assessment

Bodily Functions

Assessment Type

Performance Measure

Administration Mode

Paper & Pencil

Cost

Not Free

Cost Description

Cost not listed on the website

Diagnosis/Conditions

  • Parkinson's Disease & Movement Disorders

Populations

Neurologic Conditions

Key Descriptions

  • Testing procedures (Hackney & Earhart, 2009):
    1) Forward and backward gait were measures using a 5 meter instrumented, computerized GAITRite walkway.
    2) Participants were requested to walk at their normal pace forward to accustom themselves to the mat.
    3) Participants then walked backward.
    4) Participants then performed three trials of each direction.
    5) Participants were given adequate rest time and allowed to sit in between trials.
    6) Results from each trial were averaged.
  • Primary variables of interest were:
    1) Gait velocity
    2) Stride length
    3) Cadence
    4) Heel to heel base of support
    5) Double support percent
    6) Swing and stance percent
    7) Functional ambulation profile

Number of Items

1; 3 trials

Equipment Required

  • Studies used a GAITRite system for kinematics. However, a 5 meter measured walkway will suffice to record gait speed and for observable postural instability and/or losses of balance.

Time to Administer

5-10 minutes

Required Training

Reading an Article/Manual Training Course

Age Ranges

Adult

18 - 64

years

Elderly Adult

65 +

years

Instrument Reviewers

Initially reviewed by Suzanne O’Neal, PT, DPT, NCSand the PD EDGE task force of the Neurology Section of the APTA in April, 2013.

Body Structure

Lower Extremity

ICF Domain

Body Function

Measurement Domain

Motor

Professional Association Recommendation

Recommendations for use of the instrument from the Neurology Section of the American Physical Therapy Association’s Multiple Sclerosis Taskforce (MSEDGE), Parkinson’s Taskforce (PD EDGE), Spinal Cord Injury Taskforce (PD EDGE), Stroke Taskforce (StrokEDGE), Traumatic Brain Injury Taskforce (TBI EDGE), and Vestibular Taskforce (Vestibular EDGE) are listed below. These recommendations were developed by a panel of research and clinical experts using a modified Delphi process.

For detailed information about how recommendations were made, please visit:  ANPT Outcome Measures Recommendations (EDGE)

Abbreviations:

 

HR

Highly Recommend

R

Recommend

LS / UR

Reasonable to use, but limited study in target group  / Unable to Recommend

NR

Not Recommended

Recommendations Based on Parkinson Disease Hoehn and Yahr stage: 

 

I

II

III

IV

V

PD EDGE

LS/UR

LS/UR

LS/UR

LS/UR

NR

Recommendations for entry-level physical therapy education and use in research:

 

Students should learn to administer this tool? (Y/N)

Students should be exposed to tool? (Y/N)

Appropriate for use in intervention research studies? (Y/N)

Is additional research warranted for this tool (Y/N)

PD EDGE

No

No

No

Not reported

Considerations

Gait velocity was found to not be a good predictor of falls (Duncan & Earhart, 2012).

Do you see an error or have a suggestion for this instrument summary? Please e-mail us!

Neurologic Conditions

back to Populations

Cut-Off Scores

Parkinson’s Disease:

(Duncan & Earhart, 2012; n = 56, non-faller n = 44, faller n = 12; Mean age = 69.5(1.2); age range = 48-89; Average Hoehn and Yahr Stage = 2.4(0.5), range 2-4)

  • Cut-off score: 0.50 m/s to predict a faller from a non-faller

Normative Data

Parkinson’s Disease:

(Hackney & Earhart, 2010; n = 78; mean age = 65.1(9.5) years, female: 28%; Disease duration = 8.2(5) years; Hoehn and Yahr scores range: 0.5-3 (0.5 = 1, 1 = 1, 1.5 = 11, 2 = 49, 2.5 = 8, 3 = 8); Matched with age- and sex-matched controls:n = 74; mean age = 65.0(10.0), female: 23%)

 

Table 1: Spatiotemporal Gait Parameters of Forward and Backward Walking

 

Forward Walking

 

Backward Walking

 

 

PD

Control

PD

Control

Velocity (m/s)

1.2 m/s  ± 0.2†

1.2 m/s  ± 0.2†

0.7 m/s ± 0.2*

0.9 m/s ± 0.2

FAP

92.7 ± 1.1*†

96.9 ± 1.1†

60.4 ± 1.1*

74.2 ± 1.1

Stride Length (m)

1.3 ± 0.01*†

1.4 ± 0.01†

0.7 ± 0.01*

1.0 ± 0.01

Base of Support (m)

0.1 m ± 0.04

0.1 m ± 0.04

0.2 m ± 0.04

0.2 m ± 0.04

Cadence (steps/min)

109 ± 1.4

105 ± 1.4

112 ± 1.4

105 ± 1.4

Swing %

34.5 ± 0.3*†

35.7 ± 0.3†

31.4 ± 0.3*

34.8 ± 0.3

Double Support %

31.3 ± 0.8†

28.7 ± 0.8†

39.3 ± 0.8*

32.0 ± 0.8

Stance %

65.5 ± 0.3*†

64.3 ± 0.3†

68.8 ± 0.3*

65.2 ± 0.3

 

 

VARIABILITY

 

 

Stride Length SD(m)

0.05 ± 0.006

0.05 ± 0.006

0.09 ± 0.006

0.09 ± 0.006

Swing % SD

2.1 ± 1.3

1.9 ± 1.4

7.4 ±1.3

4.9 ± 1.4

Stance % SD

3.0 ± 0.7†

3.2 ± 0.7

8.0 ± 0.7*

5.0 ± 0.7

Values are Means ± SE

*Significant difference between groups within walking condition

†Significant difference between FW and BW within group

 

Table 2: Spatiotemporal Gait Parameters in Freezers (n = 35) versus Non-Freezers (n = 43)

 

Forward Walking

 

Backward Walking

 

 

Freezers

Non Freezers

Freezers

Non Freezers

Velocity (m/s)

1.1 ± 0.04

1.2 ± 0.04

0.61 ± 0.05

0.73 ± 0.05

FAP

91.4 ± 7.9

93.7 ± 8.2

55.8 ± 2.2†

64.1 ± 2.5

Stride Length (m)

1.2 ± 0.03

1.3 ± 0.03

0.7 ± 0.04†

0.8 ± 0.05

Base of Support (m)

0.1 ± 0.007

0.1 ± 0.005

0.2 ± 0.01

0.2 ± 0.01

Cadence (steps/min)

109 ± 2.4

109 ± 1.7

114 ± 4.7

110 ± 3.5

Swing %

33.7 ± 0.42*

35.2 ± 0.34

30.3 ± 0.8*

32.4 ± 0.6

Double Support %

32.8 ± 0.84*

30.0 ± 0.70

41.2 ± 2.3

37.8 ± 11.6

Stance %

66.4 ± 0.42*

64.8 ± 0.34

70.0 ± 0.9†

67.7 ± 0.6

 

 

VARIABILITY

 

 

Stride Length SD(m)

0.06 ± 0.04

0.05 ± 0.04

0.1 ± 0.01

0.1 ± 0.01

Swing % SD

2.5 ± 0.2†

107 ± 0.1

8.6 ± 3.2†

6.4 ± 2.8

Stance % SD

3.7 ± 0.4†

2.5 ± 0.1

10.8 ± 3.0†

5.7 ± 0.5

 

Values are Means ± SE. Independent t-tests were used to test for significant differences between groups

*Significant difference between freezers and non-freezers           

†Significant difference with Mann Whitney Rank Sum test

Criterion Validity (Predictive/Concurrent)

Parkinson’s Disease:

(Hackney & Earhart, 2009)

  • Correlations of UPDRS and Forward or Backward Velocity:
    •  As UPDRS scores increased, BW velocity decreased: r = -0.290, p = 0.010
    • UPDRS not correlated with FW velocity: r = -0.126, p = 0.272
  • Correlations of Berg Balance Scale and Forward or Backward Velocity:
    • As BBS scores increased, both BW (r = 0.538) and FW (r = 0.486) velocity increased (p, 0.001)
    • As FW velocity increased, BW velocity increased (r = 0.766, p ,0.001)
    • No significant relationships were found between duration of PD and FW or BW (r = 0.012, p = 0.917; r = -0.200, p= 0.079)
  • BW performance is predictive of walking difficulty in high-functioning older adults

Bibliography

Duncan, R. P. and Earhart, G. M. (2012). "Should one measure balance or gait to best predict falls among people with Parkinson disease?" Parkinson's disease 2012. 

Hackney, M. E. and Earhart, G. M. (2009). "Backward walking in Parkinson's disease." Movement Disorders 24(2): 218-223. 

rehabilitation measures

More Instruments Like This

We have reviewed more than 500 instruments for use with a number of diagnoses including stroke, spinal cord injury and traumatic brain injury among several others.

updated Jan 14, 2025

Work and Social Adjustment...

read more

updated Sep 11, 2024

Structured Clinical Interv...

read more

updated Sep 2, 2024

Minnesota Cognitive Acuity...

read more