Related Experiment Video
Updated: Dec 28, 2025
Clinical Assessment of Spatiotemporal Gait Parameters in Patients and Older Adults
Published on: November 7, 2014
Comparison of measurement protocols to estimate preferred walking speed between sites
Russell T Johnson1, Jocelyn F Hafer2, Ryan D Wedge3
1Department of Kinesiology, 30 Eastman Lane, University of Massachusetts Amherst, Amherst, MA, 01003, USA; Division of Biokinesiology and Physical Therapy, 1540 E Alcazar St, CHP 155, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, 90089, USA.
Background:
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.
Research Question:
Is measured PWS consistent across different distances and between two laboratory sites?
Methods:
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.
Results:
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.
Significance:
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.
