Secondary Logo

Journal Logo

Systematic Reviews

A Scoping Review of Physical Performance Outcome Measures Used in Exercise Interventions for Older Adults With Alzheimer Disease and Related Dementias

McGough, Ellen L. PT, PhD1; Lin, Shih-Yin MM-BC, MPH, PhD2; Belza, Basia RN, PhD2,3; Becofsky, Katie M. PhD4; Jones, Dina L. PT, PhD5; Liu, Minhui RN, PhD2,6; Wilcox, Sara PhD7; Logsdon, Rebecca G. PhD2,3

Author Information
Journal of Geriatric Physical Therapy: January/March 2019 - Volume 42 - Issue 1 - p 28-47
doi: 10.1519/JPT.0000000000000159
  • Free

Abstract

INTRODUCTION

Alzheimer disease and related dementias (ADRD) are complex neurocognitive disorders characterized by progressive memory loss and declining language, attention, executive function, perceptual-motor skills, and social cognition.1 In addition to these neurocognitive changes, alterations in sensory and motor systems affect physical and functional status.2 Notably, changes in physical performance often precede the onset of dementia, and physical function progressively declines with advancing stages of disease.3 There is evidence to support the use of exercise interventions for individuals with ADRD to mitigate physical decline, prevent falls, and preserve day-to-day function.4,5 However, determining the effectiveness of exercise interventions in this population is challenging, as many tests of physical health and functional status require a high level of comprehension, memory, and attention for an individual to perform to the best of their ability. Thus, outcome measures used commonly with older adults without ADRD may not translate for use in individuals with these conditions.

The purpose of this article was to identify commonly used physical performance outcome measures that are responsive and reliable in older adults with ADRD. This scoping review of the literature provides a review of physical performance measures in people with ADRD through May 2015 and is specific to physical performance outcomes of exercise interventions. This review differs from a review completed by Bossers et al6 in that it is focused exclusively on exercise interventions, includes a larger variety of study designs, and compares effect sizes for measures across multiple studies. Scoping reviews are useful in areas in which researchers are unable to perform systematic reviews because of fewer studies that use rigorous designs, such as randomized controlled trials.7–9 To our knowledge, no scoping reviews have been conducted to date on physical performance outcome measures for use in exercise interventions for older adults with ADRD. Since we aimed to develop a comprehensive inventory of potential physical performance outcome measures for individuals with ADRD, it was appropriate to include a greater variety of research designs (eg, quasiexperimental studies) to ensure the completeness of the review. For this investigation, exercise was defined as physical activity that is planned, structured, and repetitive over an extended period, with the purpose to improve fitness, performance, or health.10 Physical performance outcome measures were evaluated on 3 criteria: frequency of use, responsiveness, and reliability in studies of older adults with ADRD.

METHODS

Search Strategies

The strategy outlined in Appendix A was used to search for studies published between January 2000 and May 2015 first using PubMed, and then replicated in CINAHL, PsycINFO, Embase, and ALOIS.

Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

Studies were included if they met the following criteria: (1) were published in English between January 2000 and May 2015; (2) sampled predominantly older adults (65 years and older); (3) included at least 20 participants with ADRD, including mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or dementia indicated by a clinical diagnosis and/or cognitive testing; (4) included an exercise intervention; and (5) reported at least 1 outcome measure related to objective physical functioning. Studies were excluded if participants had neurological conditions other than ADRD (eg, Parkinson's disease, stroke, traumatic brain injury, Huntington's disease, and HIV-induced dementia) or if the outcome measures were unique to a single study and psychometric data were not available for individuals with ADRD.

Selection of Articles and Data Extraction

The study flowchart is shown in Figure 1. Two reviewers (S.L. and R.L.) independently screened the title of all entries (N = 2938) yielded from the 5 electronic databases and then met to resolve disagreements. When the relevancy of an article could not be determined by its title, the 2 reviewers consulted its abstract. After the 2 reviewers resolved all disagreements, the abstracts of all relevant entries (N = 362) were equally distributed to 4 pairs of reviewers. All reviewers were researchers with experience in conducting systematic and/or scoping reviews or who had research expertise in ADRD, exercise, physical activity, and/or physical performance outcomes. Each reviewer of the pair first reviewed all of the assigned abstracts against the aforementioned inclusion/exclusion criteria independently, and then the 2 reviewers met to resolve disagreements. After each pair had reached consensus on relevancy of abstracts, the full articles of these abstracts (N = 116) were redistributed to the 4 pairs of reviewers for further review and data abstraction. Each reviewer independently extracted information from the assigned full articles on study design, sample size, type of cognitive impairment, intervention characteristics, and outcome measures, and entered these data into an online abstraction tool. Following independent review, each pair of reviewers again compared their results, resolved any disagreements, and consolidated their data extraction forms. In rare cases where pairs of reviewers did not reach consensus, articles were discussed among the entire team and questions were resolved. The reference list of each full article was also reviewed during the data abstraction process to identify additional relevant articles. Scores on the Mini-Mental State Examination were extracted from each study to describe the level of cognitive impairment of study participants. The Mini-Mental State Examination scale ranges from 0 to 30: mild dementia = 21 to 25, moderate dementia = 11 to 20, and severe dementia = 0 to 10.11

Figure 1.
Figure 1.:
Scoping review flowchart.

All outcome measures identified and coded in the abstraction process were categorized into 5 domains of physical performance (Figure 2): fitness, functional mobility, gait, balance, and strength.12–14 These domains were selected based on their important role in the everyday function of older adults as defined by the NIH Toolbox, the American College of Sports Medicine, and other resources.13,14 Although constructs of physical performance domains are closely related, they are distinct in their physiological and functional response to specific exercise interventions.11 Fitness (endurance), gait (locomotion), balance, and strength have been identified as distinct constructs of motor function, while functional mobility results from combinations of movement.9,13

Figure 2.
Figure 2.:
Physical performance domains.

Once the outcome measures were abstracted and categorized into domains, we abstracted the means and standard deviations from each study to calculate effect sizes, our indicator of responsiveness. Finally, to evaluate reliability, we retrieved psychometric studies and reviewed them for test-retest reliability and interrater reliability in older adults with ADRD.

Statistical Analysis

One of the authors (S.L.) computed Cohen's d effect sizes (ESs) for each identified outcome measure in each study using the Stata 13 software (StataCorp, LP) to examine the magnitude of change in response to an exercise intervention. To ensure a consistent basis of comparison, ESs were only calculated when both pretest and posttest means and standard deviations were available (See Appendix B for formulas). The magnitude of the ES was defined according to the guidelines proposed by Cohen15 and Sawilowsky,16d = 0.20 small, d = 0.50 medium, and d = 0.80 large. An ES less than 0.20 was considered to reflect an intervention that had minimal to no effect. The frequency of an outcome measure for each domain was reported.

RESULTS

Our final sample included 48 articles; 2 of which described different outcomes from the same study.17,18 A total of 20 outcome measures were extracted and organized into the physical performance domains of fitness (3 measures), functional mobility (6 measures), gait (3 measures), balance (6 measures), and strength (2 measures).

Fitness Measures

Studies that measured fitness are summarized in Table 1. The 6-minute walk test (6MWT)19 was used as an outcome in 8 studies, comprising 5 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 2 nonrandomized trials (NRTs), and 1 single-group pre-post study. In the 6MWT, the participant is asked to walk as far as possible, in 6 minutes, on a flat, indoor corridor (30-m length preferred) with turnaround points marked by a cone. Among the 5 RCTs, the 6MWT demonstrated a large ES in 1 study (d = 2.9),20 small ESs (d = 0.20-0.46) in 3 RCTs,21–23 and no meaningful ES in 1 RCT.24 Medium to large ESs (d = 0.67-1.69) were demonstrated in the NRTs.25,26 A large ES was also observed in the pre-post study (d = 0.81).27 The 6MWT has demonstrated good to excellent relative test-retest reliability in studies of older adults with mild to moderate dementia (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] = 0.86; n = 58)28 and mild to severe dementia (ICC = 0.98-0.99; n = 51).29

Table 1. - Fitness Measures
Author Study Design, Setting Baseline Sample Size ADRD ADRD Severity: MMSE Mean (SD) Exercise Intervention Exercise Frequency Session Duration Intensity Statistically Significant (Yes/No) Effect Size
6-min walk test
Arkin27 Pre-post, University Rehab & Wellness Center 24 Mild to moderate
23.4 (4.0)
10 wk per semester,
2-8 semesters
S, B, A, F
3×/wk
NR
Moderate
Yes
0.81
Bossers et al26 NRT,
residential care
33 NR
16.5 (4.4)
6 wk
S 2×/wk,
A 3×/wk
5×/wk
30 min/session
Moderate to vigorous
Yes
0.67
Bossers et al21 RCT,
residential care
109 Mild to severe
Int 1: 15.8 (4.3);
Int 2: 15.2 (4.8)
9 wk
Int 1: S, A;
Int 2: A
4×/wk
30 min/session
Moderate to vigorous
Yes
Int 1: 0.46;
Int 2: 0.08
Kwak et al25 NRT,
NR
30 Mild to moderate
14.5 (5.3)
12 mo
S, B, A, F
2-3×/wk
30-60 min/session
Moderate
Yes
1.69
Roach et al24 RCT,
residential care
82 Mild to severe
10.2 (7.6)
16 wk
Int 1: S, B, F, E;
Int 2: A
5×/wk
15-30 min/session
Incremental
No
Int 1: −0.13;
Int 2: 0.04
Tappen et al22 RCT,
residential care
71 Mild to severe
10.8 (NR)
16 wk
Int 1: A;
Int 2: A+ conversation
3×/wk
30 min/session
NR
Yes
Int 1: −0.16;
Int 2: 0.20
Uemura et al23 RCT,
NR
100 MCI
26.8 (2.3)
12 mo
S, B, A
2×/wk
90 min/session
Moderate
Yes
0.36
Venturelli et al20 RCT,
residential care
24 Mod to severe
13 (2)
24 wk
A
4×/wk
30 min/session
Moderate
Yes
2.90
2-min walk test
Cott et al30 RCT,
residential care
86 Mod to severe
6 (6)
16 wk
A
5×/wk
30 min/session
NR
No
0.03
Oswald et al31 NRT,
residential care
294 NR
19.0 (7.8)
12 mo
S, B, E, F, C
2×/wk
20 min/session
NR
No
0.21
2-min step test
Fan and Chen35 NRT,
residential care
68 Mild
18.7 (2.3)
12 wk
Yoga
3×/wk
55 min/session
NR
Yes
0.89
La Rue et al36 Time series,
home/community
64 Mild
22.5 (5.1)
Average 10.65 mo
S, F, E
1×/wk
70 min/session
NR
No
0.18
Abbreviations: A, aerobic (includes walking and cycling); ADRD, Alzheimer disease and related dementia; B, balance; C, coordination (includes agility); E, endurance (includes stamina); F, flexibility (includes stretching); Int, intervention; MCI, mild cognitive impairment; MMSE: Mini-Mental Status Examination; NR, not reported; NRT, nonrandomized trial with comparison group; pre-post, single-group pre-post; RCT, randomized controlled trial; S, strength; SD, standard deviation.

The 2-minute walk test (2MWT)19 was used as an outcome measure in 1 RCT30 and 1 NRT.31 In the 2MWT, the participant is asked to walk as far as possible, in 2 minutes, on a flat, indoor corridor (30-m length preferred), with turnaround points marked by a cone.32 No effect was seen in the RCT, but a small ES was demonstrated in the NRT (d = 0.21). Reliability of the 2MWT has not been reported in people with ADRD. The 2MWT has demonstrated concurrent validity with the 6MWT in older adults without dementia living in long-term care (r = 0.92).33 Two studies used the 2-minute step test from the Senior Fitness Test.34 One was an NRT, yielding a large ES (d = 0.89);35 the other was a time series study, yielding minimal to no effect (d = 0.18).36 No studies were identified examining the psychometric properties of the 2-minute step test in people with ADRD.

Functional Mobility Measures

Studies that measured functional mobility are summarized in Table 2. A repeated chair stand test, including the 30-second chair stand (and modified 10-second) and 5-time sit-to-stand (FTSTS), was used in 20 of 47 studies to measure functional mobility and lower extremity strength. The 30-second chair stand test measures the maximum number of times the participant is able to stand in 30 seconds, and the FTSTS measures the time it takes to stand 5 times quickly. Both chair stand tests utilize a standard 17- to 18-inch chair without armrests, and the participant starts from the middle of the chair with a straight back. There were 10 RCTs, 6 NRTs, 1 pre-post, and 2 time series studies. Of the 10 RCTs, a small ES (d = 0.41-0.48)21 and a large ES (d = 1.08)37 were demonstrated on the 30-second test and 3 studies showed medium to large ESs on the FTSTS (d = 0.50-0.77).38–40 In 5 NRT studies, the 30-second chair stand demonstrated small ESs (d = 0.20-0.41) in 2 studies26,41 and large ESs (1.07-1.32) in 3 studies.35,41,42 In NRT studies, the FTSTS test showed small to medium ESs in 2 studies (d = 0.44-0.71).31,43 Good to excellent test-retest reliability on the 30-second chair stand (ICC = 0.84, n = 58)28 and the FTSTS (ICC = 0.94, n = 12) have been reported.44 In addition, excellent interrater reliability on the 30-second chair stand (ICC = 1.0, n = 33) has been reported in older adults with ADRD.45

Table 2. - Functional Mobility Measures
Author Study Design, Setting Baseline Sample Size ADRD ADRD Severity: MMSE Mean (SD) Exercise Intervention Exercise Frequency, Session Duration, Intensity Statistically Significant (Yes/No) Effect Size
Chair stand test: 30-s chair stand
Bossers et al26 NRT,
residential care
33 NR
16.5 (4.4)
6 wk
S 2×/wk,
A 3×/wk
5×/wk
30 min/session
Moderate to vigorous
No
0.41
Bossers et al21 RCT,
residential care
109 Mild to severe
Int 1: 15.8 (4.3);
Int 2: 15.2 (4.8)
9 wk
Int 1: S, A;
Int 2: A
4×/wk
30 min/session
Moderate to vigorous
Yes
Int 1: 0.48;
Int 2: 0.00
Chang et al59 Time series,
adult day center
26 NR
NR
4 mo
S, A, F
3-5×/wk
35-60 min/session Low to moderate
No
0.02
de Andrade et al42 NRT,
university setting
30 Mild to moderate
19.4 (4.0)
16 wk
S, B, A, F, C
3×/wk
60 min/session
Moderate
Yes
1.32
Fan and Chen35 NRT,
residential care
68 Mild to moderate
18.7 (2.3)
12 wk
Yoga
3×/wk
55 min/session
NR
Yes
1.12
La Rue et al36 Time series
Home/community
64 Mild
22.5 (5.1)
Average 10.65 mo
S, F, E
1×/wk
70 min/session
NR
No
0.23
Slaughter and Estabrooks60 Time series,
residential care
26 NR
NR
2 mo
S (sit-to-stand exercise)
4×/d
varied duration
NR
Yes
1.07
Slaughter et al41 NRT,
residential care
145 NR
NR
6 mo
S, B
4×/d
0.5-5 min/session
NR
No
0.20
Telenius et al61 RCT,
residential care
170 Mild to moderate
15.6 (5.0)
12 wk
S, B
2×/wk
50-60 min/session
Vigorous
Yes
0.18
Vreugdenhil et al37 RCT (10-s test),
private home
40 NR
22.0 (NR)
4 mo
S, B, A
7 d/wk
40 min/session
Progressive
Yes
1.08
Chair stand test: 5-time sit-to-stand test
Dechamps et al62 RCT,
residential care
49 NR
10.6 (NR)
12 wk
S, B, A, F
4×/wk
30 min/session
Low to moderate
No
0.08
Dechamps et al40 RCT,
residential care
94 NR
Int 1: 17.3 (9.3);
Int 2: 14.2 (9.3)
6 mo
Int 1: S, B, C;
Int 2: S, B, F
2-4×/wk
30-40 min/session
Low to moderate
Yes
Int 1: 0.46;
Int 2: 0.61
Hauer et al39 RCT,
outpatient clinic
122 Mild to moderate
21.7 (2.8)
3 mo
S, FT
2×/wk
120 min/session
Moderate to vigorous
Yes
0.77
Netz et al63 Observational and RCT,
adult day center
29 NR
13.3 (5.8)
24 wk
S, B, ROM, C
2×/wk
45 min/session
Low to moderate
No
0.02
Oswald et al31 NRT,
residential care
73 NR
19.0 (7.8)
12 mo
S, B, E, C, F,
2×/wk
20 min/session
NR
Yes
0.71
Schwenk et al43 NRT,
hospital
148 Mild to moderate
21.4
Average 12.1 d
S, B, A, FT
2×/d
Adjusted (1 h maximum)
Moderate to vigorous
Yes
0.44
Steinberg et al64 RCT,
private home
27 NR
20.1 (5.1)
12 wk
S, B, A, F
7×/wk
NR
Moderate
No
ES NR (no postdata)
Suttanon et al49 RCT,
private home
40 Mild to moderate
20.9 (4.7)
6 mo
S, B, A
5×/wk
NR
NR
No
0.31
Thomas and Hageman18 Pre-post,
adult day center
28 Mild to moderate
17.8 (7.2)
6 wk
S
3×/wk
NR
Low to moderate
Yes
0.50
Zieschang et al38 RCT,
hospital rehab unit
91 Mild to moderate
21.5 (3.0)
3 mo
S, FT
2×/wk
120 min/session
Moderate
Yes
0.68
Timed Up and Go
Aguiar et al47 RCT,
outpatient clinic
40 Mild to moderate
20.1 (4.5)
6 mo
S, B, A, F
2×/wk
NR
Low to moderate
Yes
0.32
de Andrade et al42 NRT,
university setting
30 Mild to moderate
19.4 (4.0)
16 wk
S, B, A, F, C
3×/wk
60 min/session
Moderate
No
0.15
Bossers et al26 NRT,
residential care
33 NR
16.5 (4.4)
6 wk
S, A
5×/wk
30 min/session
Moderate to vigorous
No
0.34
Bossers et al21 RCT,
residential care
109 Mild to severe
Int 1: 15.8 (4.3);
Int 2: 15.2 (4.8)
9 wk
Int 1: S, A;
Int 2: A
4×/wk
30 min/session
Moderate to vigorous
No
Int 1: 0.18;
Int 2: 0.03
Chang et al59 Time series,
adult day center
26 NR 4 mo
S, A, F
3-5×/wk
5-60 min/session
Low to moderate
No
0.16
Christofoletti et al48 RCT,
residential care
54 Moderate
Int 1: 18.7 (1.7);
Int 2: 12.7 (2.1)
6 mo
S, B, A, F, C
3-5×/wk
1-2 h/session
NR
No
Int 1: 0.23;
Int 2: 0.19
Dechamps et al40 RCT,
residential care
94 NR
Int 1: 17.3 (9.3);
Int 2: 14.2 (9.3)
6 mo
Int 1: S, B, C;
Int 2: S, B, F
2-4×/wk
30-40 min/session
Low to moderate
No
Int 1: 0.25;
Int 2: 0.31
Hauer et al39 RCT,
outpatient clinic
122 Mild to moderate
Mean NR,
range: 17-26
12 wk
S, FT
2×/wk
120 min/session
Moderate
Yes
0.27
Kovács et al52 RCT,
residential care
86 Mild to moderate
20.8 (3.2)
12 mo
S, B, A, F
2×/wk
NR
NR
No
ES (NR)
Netz et al63 Observational and RCT,
adult day center
29 NR
13.3 (5.8)
24 wk
S, B, ROM, C
2×/wk
45 min/session
Low and moderate
No
0.25
Padala et al50 RCT,
residential care
22 Mild
Int 1: 24.9 (3.9);
Int 2: 22.6 (4.3)
8 wk
S, B, yoga
5×/wk
30 min/session
NR
No
0.21
Suttanon et al49 RCT,
private home
40 Mild to moderate
20.9 (4.7)
6 mo
S, B, A
5×/wk
NR
NR
No
0.03
Thomas and Hageman18 Pre-post,
adult day center
28 Mild to moderate
17.8 (7.2)
6 wk
S
2×/wk
NR
Low to moderate
No
0.05
Uemura et al65 Pre-post,
NR
44 MCI
26.9 (2.3)
6 mo
S, B, A, F
2×/wk
90 min/session
Low to moderate
Yes
0.50
Varela et al66 RCT,
residential care
48 MCI
Int 1: 19.9 (5.1);
Int 2: 20.8 (4.7)
6 mo
A
3×/wk
30 min/session
Low to moderate
No
Int 1: 0.03;
Int 2: 0.04
Vreugdenhil et al37 RCT,
private home
40 AD diagnosis, level NR
22 (NR)
4 mo
S, B, A
Daily
30 min/session
Progressive
Yes
0.62
Zieschang et al38 RCT,
hospital rehab unit
91 Mild to moderate
21.5 (3.0)
3 mo
S, FT
2×/wk
120 min/session
Moderate
Yes
0.28
Performance-Oriented Mobility Assessment
Hageman and Thomas17 Pre-post,
adult day center
26 Mild to moderate
18 (6.2)
6 wk
S, ROM
2-3×/wk
NR
Progressive
No
0.11 (Gait subscale)
Hauer et al39 RCT,
outpatient clinic
122 Mild to moderate
Mean NR
Range: 17-26
12 wk
S, FT
2×/wk
120 min/session
Moderate
Yes
0.71
Kovács et al52 RCT,
residential care
86 Mild to moderate
20.8 (3.2)
48 wk
S, B, A, F
2×/wk
NR
NR
Yes
ES NR (NR)
Padala et al50 RCT,
residential care
22 Mild
Int 1: 24.9 (3.9);
Int 2: 22.6 (4.3)
8 wk
S, B, A, yoga
5×/wk
30 min/session
NR
No
0.06
Rolland et al67 Pre-post,
place of residence
23 Mod to severe
16.3 (1.2)
Mean: 7 wk (5-12 wk)
A, B
0-7×/wk
Average 35 min/session NR
Yes
ES NR
(NR)
Zieschang et al38 RCT,
hospital rehab unit
91 Mild to moderate
21.5 (3.0)
3 mo
S, FT
2×/wk
120 min/session
Moderate
Yes
0.88
Functional Independence Measure
Canonici et al56 RCT,
community
32 Mild to moderate
15.4 (NR)
6 mo
S, B, A, F, dance
3×/wk
60 min/session
NR
Yes
1.45
Pitkälä et al57 RCT,
private home, or adult day center
210 Mild to severe
Int 1: 17.8 (6.6);
Int 2: 18.5 (6.3)
12 mo
S, B, E
2×/wk
60 min/session
NR
No
Int 1: 0.22;
Int 2: 0.39
Slaughter et al41 NRT,
residential care
145 Dementia NR
NR
6 mo
S, B
4×/d
0.5-5 min/session
NR
Yes
Total: 0.28
Short Physical Performance Battery
Pitkälä et al57 RCT,
home, or adult center
210 Mild to severe
Int 1: 17.8 (6.6);
Int 2: 18.5 (6.3)
12 mo
S, B, E
2×/wk
60 min/session
NR
No
ES NR (no data)
Teri et al58 RCT,
private home
153 Moderate
16.8 (7.1)
12 wk
S, B, A, F
12×/11 wk
60 min/session
Moderate
No
ES NR (no data)
Abbreviations: A, aerobic (includes walking and cycling); AD, Alzheimer disease; ADRD, Alzheimer disease and related dementia; B, balance; C, coordination (includes agility); ES, effect size; F, flexibility (includes stretching); FT, functional training; Int, intervention; MCI, mild cognitive impairment; MMSE, Mini-Mental Status Examination; NR, not reported; NRT, nonrandomized trial with comparison group; pre-post, single-group pre-post; RCT, randomized control trial; ROM, range of motion; S, strength; SD, standard deviation.

The Timed Up and Go (TUG)46 test was used in 17 of 47 studies measuring functional mobility, including 12 RCTs, 2 NRTs, 2 single-group pre-post, and 1 time series study. For the TUG test, participants are asked to stand from the chair and walk 3 m around a cone, return to chair, and sit down. The TUG was performed at usual pace in these studies. Among the 12 RCTs, 6 reported small ESs (d = 0.23-0.34)6,38–40,47,48 and 1 reported a medium ES (d = 0.62).37 In the other 5 RCTs, the TUG showed minimal to no effect.21,39,42,49,50 Excellent relative test-retest reliability has been reported on the TUG (ICC ≥0.94) in older adults with cognitive impairment, ranging in severity from MCI to moderate dementia.28,29,51

The Performance-Oriented Mobility Assessment (POMA) was used in 6 studies, including 4 RCTs and 2 single-group pre-post studies. The POMA is a task-oriented test of gait and balance that contains 9 items (16 points) for balance assessment and 7 items (12 points) for gait assessment. A higher score on the POMA indicates a higher level of function. Medium to large positive ESs (d = 0.71-0.88) were demonstrated in the 2 RCTs,38,39 no meaningful ES in 1 RCT,50 and 1 RCT lacked data to calculate the ES.52 Notably, the 3 RCTs with calculated ESs also administered the TUG. Overall, the POMA yielded larger ESs than the TUG when administered in the same study. In people with dementia, excellent test-retest reliability was demonstrated in older adults with mild-moderate dementia (ICC = 0.96).51 Good interrater reliability (ICC = 0.97)53 and predictive validity for falls (within 3 months) has been demonstrated (sensitivity = 70%-85%, specificity = 51%-61%) for the POMA and its subtests.54 In the POMA, feasibility and predictive validity in people with dementia have been demonstrated, although found to be limited in individuals with advanced dementia.54

The Functional Independence Measure (FIM) indicates how much assistance is required to carry out activities of daily living.55 The FIM was used in 3 studies, including 2 RCTs and 1 NRT. The FIM contains 18 items composed of 13 motor tasks and 5 basic activities of daily living. Each task is rated on a 7-point ordinal scale that ranges from 1, indicating total assistance (fully dependent), to 7, indicating complete independence. The FIM total score ranges from 10 (lowest function) to 126 (highest function). A large ES (d = 1.45) was found in 1 RCT,56 and a small ES was found in the other RCT (d = 0.22-0.39)57 and the NRT (d = 0.28).41 Psychometric properties of the FIM were not available.

The Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB) is a widely used test of lower extremity function in older adults and consists of 3 tasks: static standing balance, comfortable walking speed (8 ft, 3 m, or 4 m), and a timed, 5-time chair stand test. The SPPB was used in 2 RCTs, but data were not available to calculate the ESs. No significant improvement was reported on the total SPPB score in either of the studies.57,58 Psychometric properties of the SPPB components have been reported in the chair stands and gait speed as described later.

Gait Measures

Studies that measured gait are summarized in Table 3. Gait speed (m/s) during a short-distance walk at usual (self-selected) pace and/or fast pace was used in 13 studies, including 9 RCTs, 2 NRTs, and 2 single-group pre-post design. A walking distance of 6 m was most commonly used, but distances of 5 m and 2.4 m were also utilized. Among the 9 RCTs, 5 demonstrated small-to-medium ESs for usual-paced gait speed (d = 0.20-0.57),21,40,68–70 and 1 demonstrated a large ES for fast-paced gait speed (d = 0.80).39 Two NRTs showed a medium ES for usual-paced gait speed (m/s) (d = 0.78)26 and a large ES for fast walking time (s) (d = 1.25).35 Timed gait speed has demonstrated good to excellent test-retest reliability in people with mild to severe dementia on the 6-m and 10-m walks (ICC = 0.86-0.98).29,71 In older adults with moderate to severe dementia, concurrent validity was reported between gait speed (m/s) and lower extremity function on the SPPB (r = 0.71).72

Table 3. - Gait Measures
Author Study Design, Setting Baseline Sample Size ADRD ADRD Severity: MMSE Mean (SD) Exercise Intervention Exercise Frequency, Session Duration, Intensity Statistically Significant (Yes/No) Effect Size
Short-distance gait speed (m/s)
Aman and Thomas76 Pre-post (6-m walk),
residential care
50 Severe
NR
3 wk
S, A
3×/wk
30 min/session
Moderate
Yes
0.50 (fast pace)
Bossers et al26 NRT (6-m walk),
residential care
33 NR
Int: 16.5 (4.4)
6 wk
S, A
5×/wk
30 min/session
Moderate to vigorous
Yes
0.78 (usual pace)
Bossers et al21 RCT (6-m walk),
residential care
109 Mild to severe
Int 1: 15.8 (4.3);
Int 2: 15.2 (4.8)
9 wk
Int 1: S, A;
Int 2: A
4×/wk
30 min/session
Moderate to vigorous
No
Int 1: 0.39;
Int 2: 0.03
Dechamps et al40 RCT (10-m walk),
residential care
94 NR
Int 1: 17.3 (9.3);
Int 2: 14.2 (9.3)
6 mo
Int 1: S, B, C;
Int 2: S, B, F
2-4×/wk
30-40 min/session
Low to moderate
Yes
Int 1: 0.42;
Int 2: 0.44
Doi et al68 RCT (5-m walk),
NR
50 MCI
26.6 (1.8)
6 mo
S, B, A,
2×/wk
90 min/session
Mod
Yes
0.45 (usual pace)
Hauer et al39 RCT (6-m walk),
geriatric rehab clinic
122 Mild to moderate
21.7 (2.8)
12 wk
S, FT
2x/week
120 min/session
Moderate
Yes
0.80 (fast pace)
Fan and Chen35 NRT (6-m walk),
residential care
68 Mild to severe
18.7 (2.3)
12 wk
Yoga
3×/wk
55 min/session
NR
Yes
1.25 (fast pace)
Rolland et al67 RCT (6-m walk),
residential care
134 Mild to moderate
8.8 (NR)
12 mo
S, B, A, F
2×/wk
60 min/session
Moderate
Yes
0.32
Rosendahl et al69 RCT (2.4-m walk),
residential care
100 Mild to moderate
17.8 (5.1)
13 wk
S, B, FT
5×/2 wk
45 min/session
Vigorous
Yes–usual pace only
0.20 (usual pace)
0.10 (fast pace)
Steinberg et al64 RCT (8-ft walk),
private home
27 NR
20.1 (5.1)
12 wk
S, B, A, F
7×/wk
NR
NR
No
ES NR (no postdata)
Thomas and Hageman18 Pre-post (6-m walk),
adult day center
28 Mild to moderate
17.8 (7.2)
6 wk
S
3×/wk
NR
Low to moderate
No
0.10 (fast pace)
0.11 (usual pace)
Telenius et al61 RCT (6-m walk),
residential care
170 Mild to moderate
15.6 (5.0)
12 wk
S, B
2×/wk
50-60 min/session
Vigorous
No
0 (usual pace)
Zieschang et al38 RCT (distance not stated)
Hospital rehab unit
91 Mild to moderate
Int: 21.5 (3.0)
3 mo
S, FT
2×/wk
120 min/session
Moderate
Yes
0.57 (maximum speed)
Quantitative gait analysis using instrumentation
[Gait speed (m/s), stride length, step length, cadence, double-limb support, single-limb support]
Coelho et al73 NRT,
(kinematic analysis using a digital camera)
Community-based program
27 Mild to moderate
19.5 (4.1)
16 wk
S, B, A, F, C
3×/wk
60 min/session
Moderate
Yes—stride length
0.61 (usual pace)
Kemoun et al75 RCT (Bessou locometer),
residential care
38 Mild to severe
12.6 (NR)
15 wk
B, A
3×/wk
60 min/session
Moderate
Yes—usual pace
1.18-2.37
Schwenk et al43 NR (GAITRite),
hospital
148 Mild to moderate
21.4 (2.6)
Average 12.1 d
S, B, A, FT
2×/d
Adjusted (1 h maximum)
Moderate
No—fast pace
0.11-0.13
Schwenk et al74 RCT (GAITRite),
NR
61 Mild to moderate
21.0 (2.9)
12 wk
Dual-task training
S, B, FT
2×/wk
120 min/session
Moderate
Yes—fast pace
0.23-0.56
Abbreviations: A, aerobic (includes walking and cycling); ADRD, Alzheimer disease and related dementia; B, balance; C, coordination (includes agility); ES, effect size; F, flexibility (includes stretching); FT, functional training; Int, intervention; MCI, mild cognitive impairment; MMSE, Mini-Mental Status Examination; NR, not reported; pre-post, single-group pre-post; RCT, randomized control trial; S, strength; SD, standard deviation.

Quantitative gait analysis using instrumentation to gather spatial and temporal parameters of gait was used in 4 studies, including 2 RCTs and 2 NRTs. Instrumentation consisted of a single digital camera and kinematic software (1 study),73 the GAITRite Walkway System (2 studies),43,74 and the Bessou locometer (line or thread attached to a pulley) and SATEL software (1 study).75 Common spatial and temporal parameters across the studies using quantitative methods included gait speed (meters/second), stride length (meters), step length (meters), cadence (steps/minute), stride time (seconds), step width (meters), and double- or single-leg support (time or percentage of gait cycle). In older adults with moderate to severe dementia, concurrent validity was reported between GAITRite parameters (cadence, stride length, and stride velocity) and lower extremity function on the SPPB (r > 0.51).72

Among the 2 RCTs, small to large ESs were reported in parameters collected via the electronic walkway, including gait speed, stride length, stride time, and double-limb support, with 1 study reporting small to medium ESs (d = 0.40-0.56) during fast-paced walking,74 and the other RCT reporting large ESs (d = 1.18-2.37) during usual-paced walking.75 In the 2 NRTs, stride length improved in 1 study and was the only parameter that improved significantly, demonstrating a medium ES (d = 0.61).73 There was no effect in the other NRT.43 Quantitative gait analysis, using GAITRite, has demonstrated high test-retest reliability in people with ADRD, ranging from mild to severe disease (ICC = 0.97-0.98),29 and good test-retest reliability of velocity, cadence, step length, stride length, step width, and swing and stance times for all gait parameters in people with mild to moderate (ICC > 0.86)71 and moderate to severe ADRD (ICC > 0.91).72

Balance Measures

Studies that measured balance are summarized in Table 4. The Berg Balance Scale (BBS), a measure of static and dynamic balance, is a 14-item test with a total of 56 points (a higher score indicates lower fall risk). The BBS was used in 9 studies, including 8 RCTs and 1 NRT. Among the 8 RCTs, 4 studies had ESs ranging from small to large (d = 0.29-2.52).48,56,77,78 In 1 RCT, improvement was statistically significant but the ES was minimal.61 In the NRT, a medium ES was reported (d = 0.51) but improvement was not statistically significant.42 For older adults with ADRD, excellent test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.95)79 and good to excellent interrater reliability have been reported (ICC = 0.72-0.99) on the BBS.45,79

Table 4. - Balance Measures
Author Study Design, Setting Sample Size With ADRD ADRD Severity: MMSE Mean (SD) Exercise Intervention Frequency, Session Duration, Intensity Statistically Significant (Yes/No) Effect Size
Berg Balance Scale
Canonici et al56 RCT,
community
32 Mild to moderate
15.4 (NR)
6 mo
S, B, A, F, dance
3×/wk
60 min/session
NR
Yes
2.52
Christofoletti et al48 RCT,
residential care
54 Moderate
Int 1: 18.7 (1.7);
Int 2: 12.7 (2.1)
6 mo
S, B, A, F, C
3-5×/wk
60-120 min/session
NR
Yes
Int 1: 0.89;
Int 2: 0.70
de Andrade et al42 NRT,
university
30 Mild to moderate
19.4 (4.0)
16 wk
S, B, A, F, C
3×/wk
60 min/session
Moderate
No
0.51
Dechamps et al62 RCT,
residential care
49 NR
10.6
12 wk
S, B, F
50 min/wk
NR
NR
No
0.19
Lam et al77 RCT (group randomization),
training centers
389 MCI
24.7 (3.0)
52 wk
Tai chi
≥3×/wk
30 min/session
NR
Yes
0.29
Padala et al50 RCT,
residential care
22 Mild
Int 1: 24.9 (3.9);
Int 2: 22.6 (4.3)
8 wk
S, B, yoga
5×/wk
30 min/session
NR
No
0.11
Rosendahl et al69 RCT (by group),
residential care
100 (MMSE ≥ 10)
17.8 (5.1)
12 wk
S, B
5×/2 wk
45 min/session
Moderate to vigorous
No
0.10
Telenius et al61 RCT (block randomization),
residential care
170 Mild to moderate
15.6 (5.0)
12 wk
S, B
2×/wk
50-60 min/session
Vigorous
Yes
0.12
Yoon et al78 RCT,
residential care
30 NR
18 (NR)
12 wk
A (cycling) 3×/wk,
PT 5×/wk
3-5×/wk
20-30 min/session
NR
Yes
0.75
Functional Reach Test
Chang et al59 Time series,
adult day center
26 NR
NR
4 mo
S, A, F
3-5×/wk
35-60 min/session
Low to moderate
No
0.08
Netz et al63 Observational and RCT,
adult day center
29 NR
13.3 (5.8)
24 wk
S, B, ROM, C
2×/wk
45 min/session
Low to moderate
No
0.25
Suttanon et al49 RCT,
private home
40 Mild to moderate
20.9 (4.7)
6 mo
S, B, A
5×/wk
15 min/session
NR
Yes
0.99
Vreugdenhil et al37 RCT,
private home
40 AD level NR
22.0 (NR)
4 mo
S, B, A
Daily
40 min/session
Progressive
Yes
0.68
Single-leg stance, s
Chang et al59 Time series,
adult day center
26 NR
NR
4 mo
S, A, F
3-5×/wk
35-60 min/session
Low to moderate
No
0.01-0.20
Dechamps et al40 RCT,
residential care
94 NR
Int 1: 17.3 (9.3);
Int 2: 14.2 (9.3)
6 mo
Int 1: S, B, C;
Int 2: S, B, F
2-4×/wk
30-40 min/session
Low to moderate
Yes
Int 1: 0.38;
Int 2: 0.85
Fan and Chen35 NRT,
residential care
68 Mild to moderate
18.75 (2.3)
12 wk
Yoga
3×/wk
55 min/session
Low
Yes
1.20
Rolland et al70 RCT,
residential care
134 Mild to moderate
8.8 (NR)
12 mo
S, B, A, F
2×/wk
60 min/session
Moderate
No
ES NR
Frailty and Injuries Cooperative Studies of Intervention Techniques-Subtest 4 (timed narrow-based stance)
Bossers et al21 RCT,
residential care
109 Mild to severe
Int 1: 15.8 (4.3);
Int 2: 15.2 (4.8)
9 wk
Int 1: S, A;
Int 2: A
4×/wk
30 min/session
Moderate to vigorous
Yes
Int 1: 0.64;
Int 2: 0
Bossers et al26 NRT,
residential care
33 NR
16.5 (4.4)
6 wk
S 2×/wk,
A 3×/wk
5×/wk
30 min/session
Moderate to vigorous
No
0.41
Postural sway (instrumented)
de Andrade et al42 NRT (AccuGait postural sway during dual task),
university
30 Mild to moderate
19.4
16 wk
S, B, A, F, C
3×/wk
60 min/session
IMod
Yes
ES NR (no data)
Schwenk et al43 NRT (DynaPort narrow-base sway area),
hospital
148 Mild to moderate
21.4 (2.6)
12.1 d, average,
S, B, A, FT
2×/d,
Adjusted 1 h maximum,
Moderate
Yes
0.42
Suttanon et al49 RCT (Neuro Com—Modified Clinical Test of Sensory Interaction of Balance),
private home
40 Mild to moderate
20.9 (4.7)
6 mo
S, B, A
5×/wk
NR
NR
No
0.30
Yoon et al78 RCT (Wii Balance Board),
residential care
30 NR
18 (NR)
12 wk
A (cycling) 3×/wk
PT 5×/wk
3-5×/wk
20-30 min/session
NR
Yes,
0.64-0.89
Figure-of-8 Walk (speed, m/s; oversteps)
Bossers et al21 RCT,
residential care
109 Mild to severe
Int 1: 15.8 (4.3);
Int 2: 15.2 (4.8)
9 wk
Int 1: S, A;
Int 2: A
4×/wk
30 min/session
Moderate to vigorous
Yes
Int 1: 0.28 (speed),
0.14 (oversteps);
Int 2: 0.16 (speed), 0.16 (oversteps)
Bossers et al26 NRT,
residential care
33 NR
16.5 (4.4)
6 wk
S 2×/wk,
A 3×/wk
5×/wk
30 min/session
Moderate to vigorous
Yes
0.44 (speed), 0.37 (oversteps)
Abbreviations: A, aerobic (includes walking and cycling); AD, Alzheimer disease; ADRD, Alzheimer disease and related dementia; B, balance; C, coordination (includes agility); ES, effect size; F, flexibility (includes stretching); FT, functional training; MCI, mild cognitive impairment; MMSE, Mini-Mental Status Examination; NR, not reported; NRT, nonrandomized trial with comparison group; PT, physical therapy; RCT, randomized control trial; ROM, range of motion; S, strength; SD, standard deviation.

The Functional Reach Test, a measure of dynamic balance, was used in 4 studies, including 3 RCTs and 1 time series study. Among the 3 RCTs, 2 reported medium to large ESs (d = 0.69-0.99).37,49 No meaningful ES was demonstrated in the other studies. Good test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.80) and interrater reliability (ICC = 0.79) have been reported in older adults with ADRD.79

The single-leg stance test was administered in 4 studies, including 2 RCTs, 1 NRT, and 1 time series study. In 1 RCT, significant improvement and small to large ESs were reported (d = 0.38-0.85)40; however, outcome data were not reported in the other RCT.70 No improvement was observed in the time series trial.59 Psychometric properties were not available.

The Frailty and Injuries Cooperative Studies of Intervention Techniques-Subtest 4 (FICSIT-4) to measure narrow-base stance time was used in 2 studies, 1 RCT and 1 NRT. The RCT intervention yielded a medium ES (d = 0.64)21 and the NRT a small ES (d = 0.38).26 Good relative test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.79, n = 58) has been reported in older adults with ADRD.28

Instrumented postural sway, a measure of body sway during static standing (normal-base, narrow-base, or varied surface), was administered in 4 studies, 2 RCTs and 2 NRTs. Reduced postural sway, suggesting improvement in postural control, was demonstrated with a large ES in 1 RCT (d = 0.64-0.89)78 and a small ES in the other RCT (d = 0.30).49 Significantly less postural sway was reported in both NRTs with a medium ES (d = 0.42),43 but outcome data were not provided for this measure in the other NRT.42 Excellent test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.91) has been reported for a static balance force plate composite measure under different sensory conditions (eyes open and closed standing on a firm surface, and eyes open and closed while standing on foam) in older adults with mild to moderate ADRD.49

The Figure-of-8 Walk (F8W) Test80 was administered in 2 studies, 1 RCT and 1 NRT. The F8W requires a person to walk a figure of 8 around 2 cones placed 5 ft apart. Typical measurement parameters include speed, number of steps, and accuracy of walking.80 A small ES for speed was seen in the RCT (d = 0.28)21 and small ESs were demonstrated for increased speed and decreased oversteps in the NRT.26 The F8W has demonstrated excellent relative test-retest reliability in older adults with mild to moderate dementia (ICC = 0.91; n = 46).28

Strength Measures

Studies that measured strength are summarized in Table 5. Strength measures included isometric measures, using handheld dynamometers, of handgrip and lower extremity strength and dynamic measures using a 1-repetition maximum (RM) test for lower extremity strength. Handgrip strength was used in 8 studies, including 4 RCTs, 2 NRTs, and 2 pre-post design. Among the RCTs, small to medium ESs (d = 0.34-0.70) were reported in 2 studies.40,62 Isometric lower extremity strength of the knee extensors17,21,26,39,40 and hip flexors and ankle dorsiflexors17,39,40 was measured in 6 studies, including 4 RCTs, 1 NRT, and 1 pre-/poststudy. Among the RCTs, small to medium ESs (d = 0.26-0.63) were reported for lower extremity isometric strength.21,26 Lower extremity 1-RM tests were used in 5 studies, including 3 RCTs and 2 NRTs. In the RCTs, large ESs (d = 1.38-1.39) were reported on leg press and hip abductor dynamic muscle strength tests.27,38,39,43 Excellent test-retest reliability has been reported in individuals with mild to moderate ADRD for handgrip strength, taking the best of 3 maximum efforts to squeeze a dynamometer with the dominant hand with the arm extended (ICC > 0.90).28 Excellent test-retest reliability has also been reported for handheld dynamometer measures of maximum effort isometric knee extension (seated, 90° knee flexion), placed just proximal to the malleoli and using the best of 2 trials for individuals with mild to severe dementia (ICC > 0.95).81

Table 5. - Strength Measures
Author Study Design, Setting Baseline Sample Size ADRD ADRD Severity: MMSE Mean (SD) Exercise Intervention Exercise Frequency Session Duration Intensity Statistically Significant (Yes/No) Effect Size
Arkin27 Pre-post,
University Rehab & Wellness Center
24 Mild to moderate
23.4 (4.0)
10 wk per semester,
2-8 semesters
S, B, A, F
3×/wk
NR
Moderate
Yes
1-RM leg press: 1.0
1-RM chest press: 0.58
Bossers et al26 NRT,
residential care
33 NR
16.5 (4.4)
6 wk
S 2×/wk,
A 3×/wk
5×/wk
30 min/session
Moderate to vigorous
Yes
Isometric knee extension strength:
0.63
Bossers et al21 RCT,
residential care
109 Mild to severe
Int 1: 15.8 (4.3);
Int 2: 15.2 (4.8)
9 wk
Int 1: S, A;
Int 2: A
4×/wk
30 min/session
Moderate to vigorous
Yes
Isometric knee extension strength:
Int 1: 0.22,
Int 2: 0.06
Buettner and Fitzsimmons82 Pre-post,
residential care
20 NR 4 wk
S, A, ROM
5×/wk
30 min/session
NR
Yes
Handgrip dynamometer:
R: 0.22, L: 0.40
Dechamps et al62 RCT,
residential care
49 NR
10.6 (NR)
12 wk
S, B, A, F
4×/wk
30 min/session
Low to moderate
Yes
Handgrip dynamometer: 0.34
Dechamps et al40 RCT,
residential care
94 NR
Int 1: 17.3 (9.3);
Int 2: 14.2 (9.3)
6 mo
Int 1: S, B, C;
Int 2: S, B, F
2-4×/wk
30-40 min/session
Low to moderate
Yes
Handgrip dynamometer:
Int 1: 0.47; Int 2: 0.70;
Isometric LE strength (dynamometer) (6-12 wk)
Knee extensors: 0.56
Hip flexors: 0.32
Hip abductor: 0.12
Fan and Chen35 NRT,
residential care
68 Mild
18.75 (2.3)
12 wk
Yoga
3x/wk
55 min/session
NR
Yes
Isometric handgrip dynamometer:
0.50
Hageman and Thomas17 Pre-post,
adult day center
26 Mild to moderate
18 (6.2)
6 wk
S, ROM
2-3×/wk
NR
Moderate
No
Isometric LE strength (dynamometer):
Hip flexors, knee extensors,
Ankle dorsiflexors
No ES (mean/SD NR)
Hauer et al39 RCT,
geriatric rehab clinic
122 Mild to moderate
21.7 (2.8)
12 wk
S, FT
2×/wk
120 min/session
Moderate
No, handgrip dynamometer: 0.11
Yes, 1-RM Leg press: 1.39
Yes, isometric LE strength:
Knee extension: 0.46, 0.40
Knee flexion: 0.53, 0.48
Ankle flexion: 0.27, 0.26
Kwak et al25 NRT,
NR
30 Mild to moderate
14.5 (5.3)
12 mo
S, B, A, F
2-3×/wk
30-60 min/session
Moderate
Yes
Muscle strength/endurance
ACSM methods:
Muscle strength: 1.19
Muscle endurance: 1.01
Rosendahl et al69 RCT,
residential care
100 Mild to moderate
17.8 (5.1)
13 wk
S, B, FT
5×/2 wk,
45 min/session
Vigorous
No
1-RM leg press: 0.13
Schwenk et al43 NRT,
hospital
148 Mild to moderate
21.4 (2.6)
Average 12.1 d,
S, B, A, FT
2×/d
Adjusted (1 h maximum)
Moderate
No
Handgrip dynamometer: 0.02
1-RM leg press: 0.59
1-RM hip abductor: 0.45
Thomas and Hageman18 Pre-post,
adult day center
28 Mild to moderate
17.8 (7.2)
6 wk
S
3×/wk
NR
Low to moderate
Yes, left hand
Handgrip dynamometer:
R: 0.34, L: 0.37
Zieschang et al38 RCT,
hospital rehab unit
91 Mild to moderate
21.5 (3.0)
3 mo
S, FT
2×/wk
120 min/session
Moderate
No, handgrip dynamometer:
0.09
Yes, 1-RM leg press: 1.38
Yes, LE isometric strength (dynamometer)
Knee extension: 0.49, 0.37
Knee flexion: 0.50, 0.47
Ankle flexion: 0.28, 0.27
Abbreviations: A, aerobic (includes walking and cycling); ACSM, American College of Sports Medicine; ADRD, Alzheimer disease and related dementia; B, balance; C, coordination (includes agility); E, endurance (includes stamina); ES, effect size; F, flexibility (includes stretching); FT, functional training; Int, intervention; L, left; LE, lower extremity; MCI, mild cognitive impairment; MMSE, Mini-Mental Status Examination; NR, not reported; NRT, nonrandomized trial with comparison group; pre-post, single-group pre-post; R, right; RCT, randomized control trial; RM, repetition maximum; ROM, range of motion; S, strength; SD, standard deviation.

DISCUSSION

Fitness, functional mobility, gait, balance, and strength represent important domains of physical function for older adults. Mounting evidence from both RCTs and other intervention trials suggests that each of these domains can improve in people with ADRD.83 This scoping review identified commonly used physical performance outcome measures that are responsive and reliable for use in exercise interventions for older adults with ADRD. Use of these measures in future research has the potential to lead to improved clinical care for this vulnerable and growing population.

Physical fitness, including cardiorespiratory and muscular fitness, is associated with decreased morbidity and mortality and is important for maintaining relative independence in older adults.14 In studies included in this review, fitness was most often measured with the 6MWT, which was found to be sensitive to change (most studies reported medium to large ES), and reliable in subjects with ADRD. Furthermore, the 6MWT has been widely used to assess exercise capacity in noncognitively impaired older adult populations and also provides information on an individual's functional mobility.84,85 Minimal detectable change (MDC), the magnitude of change that exceeds expected measurement error and variability on the 6MWT (MDC 90th percentile), was reported to be 33.47 m in older adults with ADRD.29 Although few studies used the 2MWT, and reliability was not available, this test is shorter than the 6MWT and may be more feasible for individuals with severe cognitive impairment.

Measures of functional mobility are important for evaluating risk for progressive and/or catastrophic mobility disability86 as well as outcomes of exercise intervention studies. The most frequent measures used to assess functional mobility outcomes in response to exercise interventions were the TUG and chair stand tests (FTSTS or 30-second chair stand). Both tests had good to excellent reliability in people with ADRD. Reliable measures of lower extremity isometric strength are predictive of sit-to-stand performance in older adults with ADRD,81 suggesting that handheld dynamometer measurement may enhance assessment of lower extremity function in older adults with ADRD.

The sensitivity of the TUG to detect clinically meaningful change may decrease as dementia severity increases. This is suggested by MDC values on the TUG that range from 4.0929 to 8.07 seconds28 in older adults with ADRD compared with a reported MDC of 1.52 seconds in people with MCI.29 It is also interesting to note that a higher MDC for the 30-second chair stand has been reported in individuals with MCI (MDC = 4.21 stands) than those with moderate dementia (MDC = 2.3 stands).

Improvement on tests of functional mobility is clinically important because poor performance on these tests is associated with increased risk for adverse health events, including falls.87,88 The FIM, used in 3 studies, is more time-consuming and dependent on ratings from trained personnel. However, it may be feasible to obtain useful FIM ratings from caregivers since moderate to high correlations (r = 0.62-0.91) have been reported between caregiver-reported FIM scores and investigator observation-derived FIM scores (real-time or videotaped).89

Quantitative measures of gait allow for assessment of temporal and spatial characteristics of walking, including gait speed, step length, swing time, and stance time step. The 6-m walk test was used as a gait outcome measure in multiple exercise intervention studies. Short-distance (6-10 m) gait speed has demonstrated good to excellent reliability in people with dementia;29,71 it is also inexpensive and easy to measure in clinical and research settings. Five- to 10-m walking distance tests have demonstrated feasibility and are psychometrically sound in older adults without dementia.90 However, although we included 3 studies that used 2.4-m distance, this shorter distance is not recommended due to low concurrent validity with longer distance walk tests.91 In this review, gait speed was responsive to exercise interventions in older adults with ADRD, demonstrating small to medium ESs in more than half of the RCTs. Additional quantitative temporal and spatial gait parameters, including stride length, stride time, and double limb support, were also responsive to exercise interventions as demonstrated by medium to large effect sizes during usual- and fast-paced walking. Reduced gait speed, stride length, and increased double support have been associated with instability and falls in older adults with dementia,72 suggesting that improvements in these parameters are clinically important.

In nursing home residents with moderate to severe dementia, gait changes measured with an electronic walkway system (GAITRite) were significant predictors of at least 1 fall, gathered from a computerized fall incident report system.54 Specifically, reduced gait speed (odds ratio = 1.22; 95% confidence interval = 1.04-1.43) and reduced mean stride length (odds ratio = 1.19; 95% confidence interval = 1.03-1.40) were significant predictors of a fall within 3 months. Sensitivity was 82% for velocity and 86% for mean stride length. Specificity was 52% for velocity and mean stride length.54 The MDC at the 90th percentile for gait speed is 0.09 m/s.29

Decreased usual gait speed is a consistent risk factor for disability, cognitive impairment, institutionalization, falls, and mortality.92 Researchers have also suggested that gait speed alone can be used as a predictor of mobility disability, dementia, and mortality in community-dwelling older adults.92 Further research is needed to determine whether improved gait speed reduces the onset of mobility disability and mortality in older adults with ADRD.

Performance on balance tests is nearly as prognostic in predicting adverse health events in older adults as usual gait speed.88 Balance deficits are present even at the earliest stages of ADRD, suggesting that early identification and balance training could improve postural stability and reduce risk for falls over the course of disease.93,94 Balance measures used in the reviewed studies were the BBS, Functional Reach, Single-Leg Stance, the FICSIT-4, and the Figure-of-8 test. In this scoping review, the BBS, a measure of static and dynamic balance, was the most frequently used balance test. Lower scores on the BBS have been associated with falls in older adults with moderate to severe dementia.72 In this review, 4 of 8 RCTs reported small to large ESs, suggesting reduced fall risk in response to exercise interventions. Excellent relative test-retest reliability and good to excellent interrater reliability support the application of the BBS in people with dementia; however, further research is needed considering a ceiling effect on the BBS in other older adult populations.28 MDCs, at the 95th percentile (n = 15), of 16.7 for the BBS and 12.6 cm for the Functional Reach have been reported in people with mild to moderate dementia. However, both tests had high standard error of measurement and enough disagreement of 2 evaluators in one session to cause problems with interpretation.79 Therefore, further study of MDCs is needed for the BBS and Functional Reach Test in people with ADRD.

Similar to quantitative gait analysis, instrumented postural sway provides quantitative data beyond that which can be attained with traditional clinical performance-based tests,95 and postural sway measures represent independent domains of mobility in healthy community-dwelling older adults and individuals with Parkinson's disease,96,97 which is likely similar in individuals with ADRD. In response to exercise interventions, a reduction of postural sway was detected during static standing in 2 of the 4 RCTs.

This scoping review of the literature is based on a broad and comprehensive literature search, conducted with the assistance of a research librarian. Each relevant article identified was reviewed in pairs, with each partner completing the abstraction process independently and any differences in ratings being resolved by consensus between the reviewers or among the entire group. The results of this review provide information on responsiveness and reliability, making it an excellent resource for researchers and clinicians implementing exercise interventions with this population. Limitations to the current review are related to scoping review methodology. No quality appraisal of studies was conducted. Across all studies included in this review, there was considerable variability in the characteristics reported of the exercise interventions. Although these characteristics (eg, components, dose, and duration) are summarized in measurement tables, they were not considered in evaluating the sensitivity or strength of the outcome measures, thus some differences in ES might be due to differences in the programs, rather than in the measures themselves. However, since the outcome measures that were ultimately included in the review were used across multiple studies, this limitation is at least partially mitigated.

CONCLUSIONS

There are challenges in evaluating the effects of exercise interventions for older adults with ADRD, particularly as cognitive impairment progresses. Physical performance outcome measures used in older adults without cognitive impairment may not translate to intervention work with individuals who have ADRD. In studies of older adults with ADRD, the 6MWT, TUG, repeated chair stand tests, short-distance gait speed, the BBS, and isometric strength are frequently used and responsive to exercise interventions. In addition, good to excellent reliability on these outcome measures has been reported in individuals with mild to moderate dementia. Further research is needed to identify optimal outcome measures for individuals with severe dementia. The results of this review have the potential to aid clinicians and researchers in selecting appropriate measures to evaluate physical performance outcomes in response to exercise interventions in older adults with ADRD.

REFERENCES

1. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. 5th ed. Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Publishing; 2013.
2. Albers MW, Gilmore GC, Kaye J, et al. At the interface of sensory and motor dysfunctions and Alzheimer's disease. Alzheimers Dement. 2015;11(1):70–98.
3. Buchman AS, Boyle PA, Leurgans SE, Barnes LL, Bennett DA. Cognitive function is associated with the development of mobility impairments in community-dwelling elders. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2011;19(6):571–580.
4. Laver K, Dyer S, Whitehead C, Clemson L, Crotty M. Interventions to delay functional decline in people with dementia: a systematic review of systematic reviews. BMJ Open. 2016;6(4):e010767.
5. Chan WC, Yeung JW, Wong CS, et al. Efficacy of physical exercise in preventing falls in older adults with cognitive impairment: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2015;16(2):149–154.
6. Bossers WJ, van der Woude LH, Boersma F, Scherder EJ, van Heuvelen MJ. Recommended measures for the assessment of cognitive and physical performance in older patients with dementia: a systematic review. Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord Extra. 2012;2(1):589–609.
7. Jones CA, Pohar S. Health-related quality of life after total joint arthroplasty: a scoping review. Clin Geriatr Med. 2012;28(3):395–429.
8. Levac D, Colquhoun H, O'Brien KK. Scoping studies: advancing the methodology. Implement Sci. 2010;5(69):1–9.
9. Arksey HM, O'Malley L. Scoping studies: toward a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005;8(1):19–32.
10. Caspersen CJ, Powell KE, Christenson GM. Physical activity, exercise, and physical fitness: definitions and distinctions for health-related research. Public Health Rep. 1985;100(2):126–131.
11. Perneczky R, Wagenpfeil S, Komossa K, Grimmer T, Diehl J, Kurz A. Mapping scores onto stages: Mini-Mental State Exam and Clinical Dementia Rating. Am J Geriatric Psychiatry. 2006;14(2):139–144.
12. Rydwik E, Frandin K, Akner G. Effects of physical training on physical performance in institutionalised elderly patients (70+) with multiple diagnoses. Age Ageing. 2004;33(1):13–23.
13. Reuben DB, Magasi S, McCreath HE, et al. Motor assessment using the NIH Toolbox. Neurology. 2013;80(11):S65–S75.
14. Garber CE, Blissmer B, Deschenes MR, et al. American College of Sports Medicine position stand. Quantity and quality of exercise for developing and maintaining cardiorespiratory, musculoskeletal, and neuromotor fitness in apparently healthy adults: guidance for prescribing exercise. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2011;43(7):1334–1359.
15. Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. 2nd ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1988.
16. Sawilowsky SS. New effect size rules of thumb. J Mod Appl Stat Methods. 2009;8(2):597–599.
17. Hageman PA, Thomas VS. Gait performance in dementia: the effects of a 6-week resistance training program in an adult day-care setting. Int J Geriatri Psychiatry. 2002;17(4):329–334.
18. Thomas VS, Hageman PA. Can neuromuscular strength and function in people with dementia be rehabilitated using resistance-exercise training? Results from a preliminary intervention study. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2003;58(8):746–751.
19. Butland RJ, Pang J, Gross ER, Woodcock AA, Geddes DM. Two-, six-, and 12-minute walking tests in respiratory disease. Br Med J. 1982;284(6329):1607–1608.
20. Venturelli M, Scarsini R, Schena F. Six-month walking program changes cognitive and ADL performance in patients with Alzheimer. Am J of Alzheimers Dis Other Demen. 2011;26(5):381–388.
21. Bossers WJ, van der Woude LH, Boersma F, Hortobagyi T, Scherder EJ, van Heuvelen MJ. A 9-week aerobic and strength training program improves cognitive and motor function in patients with dementia: a randomized, controlled trial. Am J Geriatri Psychiatry. 2015;23(11):1106–1116.
22. Tappen RM, Roach KE, Applegate EB, Stowell P. Effect of a combined walking and conversation intervention on functional mobility of nursing home residents with Alzheimer disease. Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord. 2000;14(4):196–201.
23. Uemura K, Doi T, Shimada H, et al. Effects of exercise intervention on vascular risk factors in older adults with mild cognitive impairment: a randomized controlled trial. Dement Geriatr Cogn Dis Extra. 2012;2(1):445–455.
24. Roach KE, Tappen RM, Kirk-Sanchez N, Williams CL, Loewenstein D. A randomized controlled trial of an activity specific exercise program for individuals with Alzheimer disease in long-term care settings. J Geriatr Phys Ther. 34(2):50–56.
25. Kwak YS, Um SY, Son TG, Kim DJ. Effect of regular exercise on senile dementia patients. Int J Sport Med. 2008;29(6):471–474.
26. Bossers WJ, Scherder EJ, Boersma F, Hortobagyi T, van der Woude LH, van Heuvelen MJ. Feasibility of a combined aerobic and strength training program and its effects on cognitive and physical function in institutionalized dementia patients. A pilot study. PLoS One. 2014;9(5):e97577.
27. Arkin SM. Student-led exercise sessions yield significant fitness gains for Alzheimer's patients. Am J Alzheimers Dis. 2003;18(3):159–170.
28. Blankevoort CG, van Heuvelen MJ, Scherder EJ. Reliability of six physical performance tests in older people with dementia. Phys Ther. 2013;93(1):69–78.
29. Ries JD, Echternach JL, Nof L, Gagnon Blodgett M. Test-retest reliability and minimal detectable change scores for the Timed “Up and Go” test, the Six-Minute Walk test, and gait speed in people with Alzheimer disease. Phys Ther. 2009;89(6):569–579.
30. Cott CA, Dawson P, Sidani S, Wells D. The effects of a walking/talking program on communication, ambulation, and functional status in residents with Alzheimer disease. Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord. 2002;16(2):81–87.
31. Oswald WD, Gunzelmann T, Ackermann A. Effects of a multimodal activation program (SimA-P) in residents of nursing homes. Eur Rev Aing Phys Act. 2007;4:91–102.
32. Pin TW. Psychometric properties of 2-Minute Walk test: a systematic review. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2014;95(9):1759–1775.
33. Connelly DM, Thomas BK, Cliffe SJ, Perry WM, Smith RE. Clinical utility of the 2-Minute Walk test for older adults living in long-term care. Physiother Can. 2009;61(2):78–87.
34. Rikli RE, Jones CJ. Development and validation of criterion-referenced clinically relevant fitness standards for maintaining physical independence in later years. Gerontologist. 2013;53(2):255–267.
35. Fan JT, Chen KM. Using Silver Yoga exercises to promote physical and mental health of elders with dementia in long-term care facilities. Int Psychogeriatr. 2011;23(8):1222–1230.
36. La Rue A, Felten K, Turkstra L. Intervention of multi-modal activities for older adults with dementia translation to rural communities. Am J Alzheimers Dis Other Demen. 2015;30(5):468–477.
37. Vreugdenhil A, Cannell J, Davies A, Razay G. A community-based exercise programme to improve functional ability in people with Alzheimer's disease: A randomized controlled trial. Scand J Caring Sci. 2012;26(1):12–19.
38. Zieschang T, Schwenk M, Oster P, Hauer K. Sustainability of motor training effects in older people with dementia. J Alzheimers Dis. 2013;34(1):191–202.
39. Hauer K, Schwenk M, Zieschang T, Essig M, Becker C, Oster P. Physical training improves motor performance in people with dementia: a randomized controlled trial. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2012;60(1):8–15.
40. Dechamps A, Diolez P, Thiaudiere E, et al. Effects of exercise programs to prevent decline in health-related quality of life in highly deconditioned institutionalized elderly persons: a randomized controlled trial. Arch Intern Med. 2010;170(2):162–169.
41. Slaughter SE, Wagg AS, Jones CA, et al. Mobility of vulnerable elders study: effect of the sit-to-stand activity on mobility, function, and quality of life. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2015;16(2):138–143.
42. de Andrade LP, Gobbi LTB, Coelho FGM, Christofoletti G, Riani Costa JL, Stella F. Benefits of multimodal exercise intervention for postural control and frontal cognitive functions in individuals with Alzheimer's disease: a controlled trial. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2013;61(11):1919–1926.
43. Schwenk M, Dutzi I, Englert S, et al. An intensive exercise program improves motor performances in patients with dementia: translational model of geriatric rehabilitation. J Alzheimers Dis. 2014;39(3):487–498.
44. Thomas VS, Hageman PA. A preliminary study on the reliability of physical performance measures in older day-care center clients with dementia. Int Psychogeriatr. 2002;14(1):17–23.
45. Telenius EW, Engedal K, Bergland A. Inter-rater reliability of the Berg Balance Scale, 30 s Chair Stand test and 6 M Walking test, and construct validity of the Berg Balance Scale in nursing home residents with mild-to-moderate dementia. BMJ Open. 2015;5(9):e008321.
46. Podsiadlo D, Richardson S. The Timed “Up & Go”: a test of basic functional mobility for frail elderly persons. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1991;39(2):142–148.
47. Aguiar P, Monteiro L, Feres A, Gomes I, Melo A. Rivastigmine transdermal patch and physical exercises for Alzheimer's disease: a randomized clinical trial. Curr Alzheimer Res. 2014;11(6):532–537.
48. Christofoletti G, Oliani MM, Gobbi S, Stella F, Bucken Gobbi LT, Renato Canineu P. A controlled clinical trial on the effects of motor intervention on balance and cognition in institutionalized elderly patients with dementia. Clin Rehabil. 2008;22(7):618–626.
49. Suttanon P, Hill KD, Said CM, et al. Feasibility, safety and preliminary evidence of the effectiveness of a home-based exercise programme for older people with Alzheimer's disease: a pilot randomized controlled trial. Clin Rehabil. 2012;27(5):427–438.
50. Padala KP, Padala PR, Malloy TR, et al. Wii-fit for improving gait and balance in an assisted living facility: a pilot study. J Aging Res. 2012;597573.
51. van Iersel MB, Benraad CE, Rikkert MG. Validity and reliability of quantitative gait analysis in geriatric patients with and without dementia. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2007;55(4):632–634.
52. Kovács E, Sztruhar Jonasne I, Karoczi CK, Korpos A, Gondos T. Effects of a multimodal exercise program on balance, functional mobility and fall risk in older adults with cognitive impairment: a randomized controlled single-blind study. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med. 2013;49(5):639–648.
53. Sterke CS, Huisman SL, van Beeck EF, Looman CW, van der Cammen TJ. Is the Tinetti Performance Oriented Mobility Assessment (POMA) a feasible and valid predictor of short-term fall risk in nursing home residents with dementia? Int Psychogeriatr. 2010;22(2):254–263.
54. Sterke CS, van Beeck EF, Looman CW, Kressig RW, van der Cammen TJ. An electronic walkway can predict short-term fall risk in nursing home residents with dementia. Gait Posture. 2012;36(1):95–101.
55. Keith RA, Granger CV, Hamilton BB, Sherwin FS. The Functional Independence Measure: a new tool for rehabilitation. Adv Clin Rehabil. 1987;1:6–18.
56. Canonici AP, Andrade LP, Gobbi S, Santos-Galduroz RF, Gobbi LT, Stella F. Functional dependence and caregiver burden in Alzheimer's disease: a controlled trial on the benefits of motor intervention. Psychogeriatrics. 2012;12(3):186–192.
57. Pitkälä KH, Poysti MM, Laakkonen ML, et al. Effects of the Finnish Alzheimer disease exercise trial (FINALEX): a randomized controlled trial. JAMA Intern Med. 2013;173(10):894–901.
58. Teri L, Gibbons LE, McCurry SM, et al. Exercise plus behavioral management in patients with Alzheimer disease: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2003;290(15):2015–2022.
59. Chang SH, Chen CY, Shen SH, Chiou JH. The effectiveness of an exercise programme for elders with dementia in a Taiwanese day-care centre. Int J Nurs Pract. 2011;17(3):213–220.
60. Slaughter SE, Estabrooks CA. Optimizing the mobility of residents with dementia: a pilot study promoting healthcare aide uptake of a simple mobility innovation in diverse nursing home settings. BMC Geriatr. 2013;13:110.
61. Telenius EW, Engedal K, Bergland A. Effect of a high-intensity exercise program on physical function and mental health in nursing home residents with dementia: an assessor blinded randomized controlled trial. PLoS One. 2015;10(5):e0126102.
62. Dechamps A, Alban R, Jen J, Decamps A, Traissac T, Dehail P. Individualized cognition-action intervention to prevent behavioral disturbances and functional decline in institutionalized older adults: a randomized pilot trial. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2010;25(8):850–860.
63. Netz Y, Axelrad S, Argov E. Group physical activity for demented older adults feasibility and effectiveness. Clin Rehabil. 2007;21(11):977–986.
64. Steinberg M, Leoutsakos JM, Podewils LJ, Lyketsos CG. Evaluation of a home-based exercise program in the treatment of Alzheimer's disease: the Maximizing Independence in Dementia (MIND) study. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2009;24(7):680–685.
65. Uemura K, Shimada H, Makizako H, et al. Cognitive function affects trainability for physical performance in exercise intervention among older adults with mild cognitive impairment. Clin Interv Aging. 2013;8:97–102.
66. Varela S, Ayan C, Cancela JM, Martin V. Effects of two different intensities of aerobic exercise on elderly people with mild cognitive impairment: a randomized pilot study. Clin Rehabil. 2011;26(5):442–450.
67. Rolland Y, Rival L, Pillard F, et al. Feasibility of regular physical exercice for patients with moderate to severe Alzheimer disease. J Nutr Health Aging. 2000;4(2):109–113.
68. Doi T, Makizako H, Shimada H, et al. Effects of multicomponent exercise on spatial-temporal gait parameters among the elderly with amnestic mild cognitive impairment (aMCI): preliminary results from a randomized controlled trial (RCT). Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2013;56(1):104–108.
69. Rosendahl E, Lindelöf N, Littbrand H, et al. High-intensity functional exercise program and protein-enriched energy supplement for older persons dependent in activities of daily living: a randomised controlled trial. Aust J Physiother. 2006;52(2):105–113.
70. Rolland Y, Pillard F, Klapouszczak A, et al. Exercise program for nursing home residents with Alzheimer's disease: a 1-year randomized, controlled trial. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2007;55(2):158–165.
71. Wittwer JE, Webster KE, Andrews PT, Menz HB. Test-retest reliability of spatial and temporal gait parameters of people with Alzheimer's disease. Gait Posture. 2008;28(3):392–396.
72. McGough EL, Logsdon RG, Kelly VE, Teri L. Functional mobility limitations and falls in assisted living residents with dementia: physical performance assessment and quantitative gait analysis. J Geriatr Phys Ther. 2013;36(2):78–86.
73. Coelho FG, Andrade LP, Pedroso RV, et al. Multimodal exercise intervention improves frontal cognitive functions and gait in Alzheimer's disease: a controlled trial. Geriatr Gerontol Int. 2013;13(1):198–203.
74. Schwenk M, Zieschang T, Englert S, Grewal G, Najafi B, Hauer K. Improvements in gait characteristics after intensive resistance and functional training in people with dementia: a randomised controlled trial. BMC Geriatr. 2014;14(73):2–9.
75. Kemoun G, Thibaud M, Roumagne N, et al. Effects of a physical training programme on cognitive function and walking efficiency in elderly persons with dementia. Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord. 2010;29(2):109–114.
76. Aman E, Thomas DR. Supervised exercise to reduce agitation in severely cognitively impaired persons. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2009;10(4):271–276.
77. Lam LC, Chau RC, Wong BM, et al. A 1-year randomized controlled trial comparing mind body exercise (Tai Chi) with stretching and toning exercise on cognitive function in older Chinese adults at risk of cognitive decline. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2012;13(6):568.e15–568.e20.
78. Yoon JE, Lee SM, Lim HS, Kim TH, Jeon JK, Mun MH. The effects of cognitive activity combined with active extremity exercise on balance, walking activity, memory level and quality of life of an older adult sample with dementia. J Phys Ther Sci. 2013;25(12):1601–1604.
79. Muir-Hunter SW, Graham L, Montero Odasso M. Reliability of the Berg Balance Scale as a clinical measure of balance in community-dwelling older adults with mild to moderate Alzheimer disease: a pilot study. Physiother Can. 2015;67(3):255–262.
80. Hess RJ, Brach JS, Piva SR, VanSwearingen JM. Walking skill can be assessed in older adults: validity of the Figure-of-8 Walk Test. Phys Ther. 2010;90(1):89–99.
81. Suzuki M, Yamada S, Inamura A, et al. Reliability and validity of measurements of knee extension strength obtained from nursing home residents with dementia. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2009;88(11):924–933.
82. Buettner LL, Fitzsimmons S. Recreation therapy exercise on the special care unit: impact on behaviors. Am J Recreat Ther. 2004;3(4):8–24.
    83. Pitkala K, Savikko N, Poysti M, Strandberg T, Laakkonen ML. Efficacy of physical exercise intervention on mobility and physical functioning in older people with dementia: a systematic review. Exp Gerontol. 2013;48(1):85–93.
    84. Guyatt GH, Sullivan MJ, Thompson PJ, et al. The 6-minute walk: a new measure of exercise capacity in patients with chronic heart failure. Can Med Assoc J. 1985;132(8):919–923.
    85. Harada ND, Chiu V, Stewart AL. Mobility-related function in older adults: assessment with a 6-minute walk test. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1999;80(7):837–841.
    86. Guralnik JM, Ferrucci L, Balfour JL, Volpato S, Di Iorio A. Progressive versus catastrophic loss of the ability to walk: implications for the prevention of mobility loss. J Am Geriatr Society. 2001;49(11):1463–1470.
    87. Shumway-Cook A, Brauer S, Woollacott M. Predicting the probability for falls in community-dwelling older adults using the Timed Up & Go Test. Phys Ther. 2000;80(9):896–903.
    88. Cesari M, Kritchevsky SB, Newman AB, et al. Added value of physical performance measures in predicting adverse health-related events: results from the Health, Aging And Body Composition Study. J Am Geriatr Society. 2009;57(2):251–259.
    89. Cotter EM, Burgio LD, Stevens AB, Roth DL, Gitlin LN. Correspondence of the Functional Independence Measure (FIM) self-care subscale with real-time observations of dementia patients' ADL performance in the home. Clin Rehabil. 2002;16(1):36–45.
    90. Middleton A, Fritz SL, Lusardi M. Walking speed: the functional vital sign. J Aging Phys Act. 2015;23(2):314–322.
    91. Peters DM, Fritz SL, Krotish DE. Assessing the reliability and validity of a shorter walk test compared with the 10-Meter Walk Test for measurements of gait speed in healthy, older adults. J Geriatr Phys Ther. 2013;36(1):24–30.
    92. Abellan van Kan G, Rolland Y, Andrieu S, et al. Gait speed at usual pace as a predictor of adverse outcomes in community-dwelling older people an International Academy on Nutrition and Aging (IANA) Task Force. J Nutr Health Aging. 2009;13(10):881–889.
    93. Hernandez SS, Sandreschi PF, da Silva FC, et al. What are the benefits of exercise for Alzheimer's disease? A systematic review of the past 10 years. J Aging Phys Act. 2015;23(4):659–668.
    94. Gras LZ, Kannaan SF, McDowd JM, Colgrove YM, Burns J, Pohl PS. Balance and gait of adults with very mild Alzheimer's disease. J Geriatr Phys Ther. 2015;38(1):1–7.
    95. Horak F, King L, Mancini M. Role of body-worn movement monitor technology for balance and gait rehabilitation. Phys Ther. 2015;95(3):461–470.
    96. Park JH, Mancini M, Carlson-Kuhta P, Nutt JG, Horak FB. Quantifying effects of age on balance and gait with inertial sensors in community-dwelling healthy adults. Exp Gerontol. 2016;85:48–58.
    97. Horak FB, Mancini M, Carlson-Kuhta P, Nutt JG, Salarian A. Balance and gait represent independent domains of mobility in Parkinson disease. Phys Ther. 2016;96(9):1364–1371.

    Appendix A: Search Strategies (PubMed)

    Appendix B: Formula for Effect Size Calculation (Cohen's d)

    Keywords:

    Alzheimer disease and related dementia; exercise interventions; outcome measures

    © 2019 Academy of Geriatric Physical Therapy, APTA.