Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Assessment of Gait Disorders in Neurorehabilitation

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Advanced Technologies for the Rehabilitation of Gait and Balance Disorders

Part of the book series: Biosystems & Biorobotics ((BIOSYSROB,volume 19))

  • 1655 Accesses

Abstract

Recovery of walking function is one of the main objectives in stroke rehabilitation. This is a challenging goal that can be addressed with specific rehabilitation interventions that must be preceded by careful evaluations to identify the relevant gait problems. Selecting appropriate outcome measures to assess this recovery is complex because of patient-related factors such as the heterogeneity of the stroke etiology, severity of symptoms and spontaneous recovery. Despite these heterogeneous factors, a number of approaches might help both clinicians and researchers to select appropriate outcome measures for their respective settings. In this chapter, we present a comprehensive overview of the approaches that can be used to select outcome measures to evaluate the effects of gait-training interventions in patients with stroke.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Andresen EM. Criteria for assessing the tools of disability outcomes research. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2000;81:S15–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Barak S, Duncan PW. Issues in selecting outcome measures to assess functional recovery after stroke. NeuroRx. 2006;3:505–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Bensoussan L, Viton JM, Barotsis N, Delarque A. Evaluation of patients with gait abnormalities in physical and rehabilitation medicine settings. J Rehabil Med. 2008;40:497–507.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Berg KO, Wood-Dauphinee S, Williams JL, Maki B. Measuring balance in the elderly: preliminary development of an instrument. Physiother Can. 1989;41:304–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Bloem BR, Haan J, Lagaay AM, van Beek W, Wintzen AR, Roos RA. Investigation of gait in elderly subjects over 88 years of age. J Geriatr Psychiatry Neurol. 1992;5:78–84.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Collen FM, Wade DT, Robb GF, Bradshaw CM. The Rivermead mobility index: a further development of the Rivermead Motor Assessment. Int Disabil Stud. 1991;13:50–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Collin C, Wade D. Assessing motor impairment after stroke: a pilot reliability study. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1990;53:576–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Ferrarello F, Bianchi VA, Baccini M, et al. Tools for observational gait analysis in patients with stroke: a systematic review. Phys Ther. 2013;93:1673–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Fitzpatrick R, Davey C, Buxton MJ, Jones DR. Evaluating patient-based outcome measures for use in clinical trials. Health Technol Assess 1998;2(i–iv):1–74.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Geroin C, Mazzoleni S, Smania N, et al., Italian Robotic Neurorehabilitation Research Group. Systematic review of outcome measures of walking training using electromechanical and robotic devices in patients with stroke. J Rehabil Med. 2013;45:987–96.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Geroin C, Picelli A, Munari D, Waldner A, Tomelleri C, Smania N. Combined transcranial direct current stimulation and robot-assisted gait training in patients with chronic stroke: a preliminary comparison. Clin Rehabil. 2011;25:537–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Higgins PA, Straub AJ. Understanding the error of our ways: mapping the concepts of validity and reliability. Nurs Outlook. 2006;54:23–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Holden MK, Gill KM, Magliozzi MR, Nathan J, Piehl-Baker L. Clinical gait assessment in the neurologically impaired. Reliability and meaningfulness Phys Ther. 1984;64:35–40.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Holden MK, Gill KM, Magliozzi MR. Gait assessment for neurologically impaired patients. Standards for outcome assessment. Phys Ther. 1986;66:1530–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Kempen JC, Doorenbosch CA, Knol DL, de Groot V, Beckerman H. Newly identified gait patterns in patients with multiple sclerosis may be related to push-off quality. Phys Ther 2016;12.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Küçükdeveci AA, Tennant A, Grimby G, Franchignoni F. Strategies for assessment and outcome measurement in physical and rehabilitation medicine: an educational review. J Rehabil Med. 2011;43:661–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Langhorne P, Bernhardt J, Kwakkel G. Stroke rehabilitation. Lancet. 2011;377(9778):1693–702.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Leardini A, Benedetti MG, Berti L, Bettinelli D, Nativo R, Giannini S. Rear-foot, mid-foot and fore-foot motion during the stance phase of gait. Gait Posture. 2007;25:453–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Levin MF, Kleim JA, Wolf SL. What do motor “recovery” and “compensation” mean in patients following stroke? Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2009;23(4):313–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Mayich DJ, Novak A, Vena D, Daniels TR, Brodsky JW. Gait analysis in orthopedic foot and ankle surgery–topical review, part 1: principles and uses of gait analysis. Foot Ankle Int. 2014;35:80–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Mirek E, Kubica JL, Szymura J, Pasiut S, Rudzińska M, Chwała W. Assessment of gait therapy effectiveness in patients with Parkinson’s disease on the basis of three-dimensional movement analysis. Front Neurol. 2016;27(7):102.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Muro-de-la-Herran A, Garcia-Zapirain B, Mendez-Zorrilla A. Gait analysis methods: an overview of wearable and non-wearable systems, highlighting clinical applications. Sensors (Basel) 2014;14:3362–94.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Pike J, Jones E, Rajagopalan K, Piercy J, Anderson P. Social and economic burden of walking and mobility problems in multiple sclerosis. BMC Neurol. 2012;12:94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Pundik S, Holcomb J, McCabe J, Daly JJ. Enhanced life-role participation in response to comprehensive gait training in chronic-stroke survivors. Disabil Rehabil. 2012;34:1535–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Rowe PJ, Myles CM, Hillmann SJ, Hazlewood ME. Validation of flexible electrogoniometry as measure of joint kinematics. Physiotherapy. 2001;87:479–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Salter K, Jutai JW, Teasell R, Foley NC, Bitensky J, Bayley M. Issues for selection of outcome measures in stroke rehabilitation: ICF activity. Disabil Rehabil. 2005;27:315–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Salter K, Jutai JW, Teasell R, Foley NC, Bitensky J, Bayley M. Issues for selection of outcome measures in stroke rehabilitation: ICF Participation. Disabil Rehabil. 2005;27:507–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Salter K, Jutai JW, Teasell R, Foley NC, Bitensky J. Issues for selection of outcome measures in stroke rehabilitation: ICF body functions. Disabil Rehabil. 2005;27:191–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Sivan M, O’Connor RJ, Makower S, Levesley M, Bhakta B. Systematic review of outcome measures used in the evaluation of robot-assisted upper limb exercise in stroke. J Rehabil Med. 2011;43:181–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Steffen TM, Hacker TA, Mollinger L. Age- and gender-related test performance in community-dwelling elderly people: six-minute walk test, berg balance scale, timed up & go test, and gait speeds. Phys Ther. 2002;82:128–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Stucki G, Cieza A, Melvin J. The International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF): a unifying model for the conceptual description of the rehabilitation strategy. J Rehabil Med. 2007;39:279–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Sudarsky L. Gait disorders: prevalence, morbidity, and etiology. Adv Neurol. 2001;87:111–7.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Tan D, Danoudis M, McGinley J, Morris ME. Relationships between motor aspects of gait impairments and activity limitations in people with Parkinson’s disease: a systematic review. Parkinsonism Relat Disord. 2012;18:117–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Tao W, Liu T, Zheng R, Feng H. Gait analysis using wearable sensors. Sensors (Basel). 2012;12:2255–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Tinetti ME, Williams CS. Falls, injuries due to falls, and the risk of admission to a nursing home. N Engl J Med. 1997;337:1279–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Wang W, De Stefano A, Allen R. A simulation model of the surface EMG signal for analysis of muscle activity during the gait cycle. Comput Biol Med. 2006;36:601–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Watson MJ. Refining the ten-metre walking test for use with neurologically impaired people. Physiotherapy. 2002;88:386–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Whittle WM. Clinical gait analysis. Hum Mov Sci. 1996;15:369–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. World Health Organization. The International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). Geneva: WHO; 2001. http://www.who.int/classifications/icf/en/. Accessed 23 June 2016.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Neuromotor and Cognitive Rehabilitation Research Center (CRRNC), Department of Neurosciences, Biomedicine and Movement Sciences, University of Verona, P.Le L.A. Scuro 10, 37134, Verona, Italy

    Christian Geroin, Marialuisa Gandolfi & Nicola Smania

  2. Neurorehabilitation Unit, Salvatore Maugeri Foundation IRCCS, Scientific Institute of Pavia, Pavia, Italy

    Cristina Zanga & Caterina Pistarini

  3. U.O.C. of Neurorehabilitation Unit, Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Integrata, Verona, Italy

    Marialuisa Gandolfi & Nicola Smania

Authors
  1. Christian Geroin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Cristina Zanga
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Marialuisa Gandolfi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Nicola Smania
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Caterina Pistarini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christian Geroin .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Brain and Behavioural Sciences, University of Pavia, C. Mondino National Neurological Institute, Pavia, Italy

    Giorgio Sandrini

  2. SRH Gesundheitszentrum Bad Wimpfen , Bad Wimpfen, Germany

    Volker Homberg

  3. Department of Neurology, Hospital Hochzirl, Zirl, Austria

    Leopold Saltuari

  4. Department of Neurological, Biomedical and Movement Sciences, Verona University, Verona, Italy

    Nicola Smania

  5. Department of Electronics, Information and Bioengineering, Politecnico di Milano, Milan, Italy

    Alessandra Pedrocchi

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Geroin, C., Zanga, C., Gandolfi, M., Smania, N., Pistarini, C. (2018). The Assessment of Gait Disorders in Neurorehabilitation. In: Sandrini, G., Homberg, V., Saltuari, L., Smania, N., Pedrocchi, A. (eds) Advanced Technologies for the Rehabilitation of Gait and Balance Disorders. Biosystems & Biorobotics, vol 19. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-72736-3_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-72736-3_4

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-72735-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-72736-3

  • eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation