Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 17, 2026
Development of a Virtual Reality Assessment of Everyday Living Skills
Published on: April 23, 2014
Comparing remote and face-to-face assessments of physical performance in older adults: A reliability study
Fanny Buckinx1, Marvin Rezoulat2, César Lefranc2
1WHO Collaborating Center for Epidemiologic aspects of musculo-skeletal health and ageing, Division of Public Health, Epidemiology and Health Economics, University of Liège, Belgium.
Introduction:
Older people often experience a decline in their physical performance. Tests have been approved to evaluate this performance in person. Yet, the constraints associated with in-person assessments (e.g. lack of medical facilities, pandemic lockdown, and contagion risk) are making us contemplate setting up assessments remotely.
Objectives:
To determine whether remote physical performance measurements of older adults are reliable and valid compared to face-to-face measurements.
Methods:
Forty-five subjects aged 65 and over completed the normal/fast speed test (NWT/FWT), the unipodal balance test (UBT), the normal/fast timed up and go test (NTUG/FTUG), the 5 and 10 rep sit to stand test (5STS and 10STS), the 30 sec chair stand (30CS), the 2 minute step test (2MST) and the flexibility before standing (SAD) once face-to-face and twice remotely, by two different observers. The intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC), the standard errors of measurement (SEM%) and minimum detectable changes (MDC%) were calculated for both intra- and inter-observer conditions, to assess the relative and the absolute reliability. An ICC value exceeding 0.90 indicates a very high reliability, while an ICC between 0.70 and 0.89 signifies a high reliability. In clinical practice, a SEM % of less than 10% is considered acceptable. A smaller MDC % indicates a measurement that is more sensitive to detecting changes.
Results:
Intra-observer relative reliability was very high (ICC>0.9) for the UBT, NWT, NTUG, FTUG, 5STS, 10STS, 30CS and the SAD; and high (ICC>0.7) for the 2MST and FWS. SEM% values ranged from 0% to 24.03% and MDC from 0% to 9.93%. Inter-observer relative reliability was considered very high (ICC>0.9) for all tests. SEM% values ranged from 0% to 17.68% and MDC from 0% to 7.32%.
Conclusion:
Our findings demonstrate that remote assessments exhibited consistently high to very high levels of intra- and inter-observer relative reliability when compared to face-to-face assessments. Additionally, certain remote evaluations showed acceptable absolute reliability, making them viable alternatives for healthcare professionals when in-person assessments are not feasible in clinical practice.
