Comparison of measurement protocols to estimate preferred walking speed between sites

• Published in: Gait & posture 2020-03, Vol.77, p.171-174
• Main Authors: Johnson, Russell T., Hafer, Jocelyn F., Wedge, Ryan D., Boyer, Katherine A.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Gait; Locomotion; Methodology; Self-selected; Walking velocity
• ISSN: 0966-6362; 1879-2219
• DOI: 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2020.01.007

•We recommend measuring walking speed over 6 m plus acceleration and deceleration zones.•For replication, studies should report methods for estimating preferred walking speed.•Preferred walking speed is more affected by measurement protocol than by testing site.•Acceleration and deceleration zones allowed for similar speeds across conditions.•Participants walked slower for 400 m than for shorter, straightaway distances. Walking speed influences a variety of typical outcome measures in gait analysis. Many researchers use a participant’s preferred walking speed (PWS) during gait analysis with a goal of trying to capture how a participant would typically walk. However, the best practices for estimating PWS and the impact of laboratory size and walk distance are still unclear. Is measured PWS consistent across different distances and between two laboratory sites? Participants walked overground at a “comfortable speed” for six different conditions with either dynamic (4, 6, 10, and 400 m) or static (4 and 10 m) starts and stops at two different data collection sites. Repeated measures ANOVA with Bonferroni corrections were used to test for differences between conditions and sites. Participants walked significantly faster in the 4, 6, and 10 m dynamic conditions than in the 400 m condition. On average, participants walked slower in the static trials than the dynamic trials of the same distance. There was a significant interaction of lab and condition and so results were examined within each lab. Across both labs, we found that the 4 and 10 m dynamic conditions were not different than the 6 m dynamic condition at both sites, while other tests did not provide consistent results at both sites. We recommend researchers use a 6 m distance with acceleration and deceleration zones to reliably test for PWS across different laboratories. Given some of the differences found between conditions that varied by site, we also emphasize the need to report the test environment and methods used to estimate PWS in all future studies so that the methods can be replicated between studies.