Stair and Step Tests in Individuals with Multiple Sclerosis
In a study involving 100 individuals with Multiple Sclerosis, both the Stair and Step Tests showed excellent test-retest reliability (ICC2,1 of 0.997 and 0.955 respectively). The tests also displayed high measurement precision, with negligible bias, and correlated strongly with other established assessment tools.
- Tags
- #MSResearch
- Most relevant to
- —
- Human efficacy
- Not established from this source
- Mechanism
- Not reported
- Evidence strength
- Not graded
- Outcome
- Not reported
Why it matters
The findings indicate that the Stair and Step Tests are reliable and valid assessment tools, which is crucial for evaluating physical performance in individuals with MS. This can aid in clinical assessments and research.
What this does not prove
The study's limitations were not stated, and no treatment recommendations or conclusions regarding human efficacy can be drawn from this analysis.
Next milestone
No next milestone was established from the available source.
Study facts
- Study design
- Not reported
- Participants / samples
- Not reported
- Randomised
- Not reported
- Controlled
- Not reported
- Primary endpoint met
- Not reported
- Relevant MS type
- Not reported
- Publication date
- 2026-10-23
- Evidence reviewed
- Abstract only
- Regulatory approval
- Not reported
- Research areas
- Not classified
- Biological target
- Not reported
- Pathway
- Not reported
- Population
- individuals with Multiple Sclerosis (MS)
- Size of effect
- Not reported
- Secondary endpoints
- strong correlation with TUG, mFSST, MSWS-12, and EDSS (all r = 0.979), and inverse correlation with 30-s CSTS (r = -0.957) (p < .01).; The Step Test showed positive associations with 30-s CSTS (r = 0.908) and inverse links to TUG (r = -0.929), mFSST (r = -0.929), MSWS-12 (r = -0.927), and EDSS (r = -0.928) (p < .01).
- MRI endpoints
- Not reported
- Biomarkers
- Not reported
- Safety
- Not reported
Original sources
- Primary evidenceConstruct validity and intrasession intra-rater reliability of the stair and step tests in individuals with multiple sclerosis. ↗DOI: 10.1080/09593985.2026.2753030
Supporting passages (10)
sample size basisOne hundred patients with MS were evaluated
publication date2026-10-23
interventionStair and Step Tests
primary endpointtest-retest reliability, agreement, measurement precision, and construct validity
populationindividuals with Multiple Sclerosis (MS)
secondary endpointsThe Step Test showed positive associations with 30-s CSTS (r = 0.908) and inverse links to TUG (r = -0.929), mFSST (r = -0.929), MSWS-12 (r = -0.927), and EDSS (r = -0.928) (p < .01).
findingsRESULTS: Both assessments demonstrated excellent test-retest reliability. The Stair Test achieved an ICC2,1 of 0.997 (95% CI: 0.996-0.998), while the Step Test reached 0.955 (95% CI: 0.933-0.969). Regarding measurement precision, SEM95 and MDC95 were 0.15; 0.41 for the Stair Test, and 0.58; 1.61 for the Step Test. Bland-Altman analysis revealed tight agreement with negligible bias for the Stair (-0.003) and Step (0.030) tests. The Stair Test correlated strongly with TUG, mFSST, MSWS-12, and EDSS (all r = 0.979), and inversely with 30-s CSTS (r = -0.957) (p < .01). The Step Test showed positive associations with 30-s CSTS (r = 0.908) and inverse links to TUG (r = -0.929), mFSST (r = -0.929), MSWS-12 (r = -0.927), and EDSS (r = -0.928) (p < .01).
limitationsTitle: Construct validity and intrasession intra-rater reliability of the stair and step tests in individuals with multiple sclerosis.
peer reviewedPublication types: Journal Article
subjectsTitle: Construct validity and intrasession intra-rater reliability of the stair and step tests in individuals with multiple sclerosis.
AI assessment, not yet reviewed by a person · version 1 · Community votes are separate from evidence review.