• Assesses short duration walking speed (m/s).
  • Has been used in various patient populations including stroke, Parkinson’s disease, general neurologic movement disorders and SCI.

Clinical Considerations

  • The 10 MWT only assesses walking speed and does not consider the amount of physical assistance required, devices or endurance.
  • The test is conducted in a controlled environment (i.e., lab or hospital setting), so results cannot be directly translated to the environment (i.e., crossing a busy street).  The 10 MWT also requires an individual to ambulate a minimum of 14 m.  There have been reports in the literature that the distance is not always standardized (i.e., 10 m versus 14 m).
  • It appears to be a useful measure in the SCI population for both research and clinical practice.  The scale properties (time in seconds or m/s) of the 10 MWT make it a responsive test well suited to evaluating clinical interventions.
  • Is suitable for individuals who can, at a minimum, ambulate in household settings (i.e., > 14 m).
  • Assessment is easy to set up and administer, and is well-tolerated by most patient groups.

ICF Domain

Activity ▶ Mobility

Administration

  • Person-reported but can be applied through interview techniques.
  • Domain one contains 53 items. It is designed to be administered per individual across several time points. It is divided into four sections. Section A (items 1-9) asks respondents to rate their current capabilities in nine functional areas according to a five-point scale (1 = poor to 5 = excellent). All items in Sections B and C comprise the QOL subset. Each item is rated on a five-point scale (Section B: 1 = not satisfied; 5 = very satisfied; Section C: 1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree). Section D contains 33 statements about temperament and psychosocial support. Patients check those which apply to them.
  • Domain two is designed to be administered for each assistive technology device used across several time points. It consists of 10 items related to the expected benefit from a device. Patients rate each item on a five-point scale based on how much the statement applies to them (1 = does not apply to me; 5 = definitely applies to me).
  • In some spinal cord injury research publications, only domain two is used.

Number of Items

63 (divided into 2 domains)

Equipment

The person’s assistive device(s).

Scoring

No additional information is provided on scoring.

Languages

Brazilian Portuguese, French, German, Greek, Italian, Hungarian, Korean and Spanish (Spain).

Training Required

Training manual available.

Availability

Can be purchased here.

# of studies reporting psychometric properties: 1

Interpretability

  • Scores from the quality of life section provide information regarding the consumer’s subjective quality of life.
  • Higher scores are indicative of better quality of life.
  • No meaningful cut-points or normative data have been established for the SCI population.
  • Published data is available for comparison for ATD-PA B & C for the SCI population (see the Interpretability section of the Study Details sheet).

MCID: not established for SCI
SEM: not established for SCI
MDC: not established for SCI

Typical Values – Mean Scores (Person Domain Sections B & C only): 1.75-4.10
(Scherer & Cushman 2001: n = 20, 10 males, mixed injury types; acute SCI)

Reliability

Internal consistency of the ATD-PA was reported to be High (Cronbach’s α = 0.80).

(Scherer & Cushman 2001)

Validity

Correlation of the ATD-PA Quality of Life subscale was High with:

  • the Brief Symptom Inventory (Spearman’s ρ = -0.71)
  • the Satisfaction with Life Scale (Spearman’s ρ = 0.89).

(Scherer & Cushman 2001)

Responsiveness

No values were reported for responsiveness of the ATD-PA for the SCI population.

Floor/Ceiling Effect

No values were reported for the presence of floor/ceiling effects in the ATD-PA for the SCI population.

Reviewers

Dr. Ben Mortenson, Kyle Diab, Matthew Querée, Gita Manhas

Date Last Updated

20 July 2020

Koumpouros Y, Papageorgiou E, Karavasili A, AlexopoulouD. Translation and validation of the assistive technology device predisposition assessment in Greek in order to assess satisfaction with use of the selected assistive device. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol 2017;12:535-542.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27049479

Scherer MJ and Cushman LA. Measuring subjective quality of life for spinal cord injury: a validation study of the assistive technology device predisposition assessment. Disability and Rehabilitation, 2001; 23(9): 387-393.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11394589

Scherer MJ and Cushman LA. Determining the content for an interactive training programme and interpretive guidelines for the Assistive Technology Device Predisposition Assessment. Disability and Rehabilitation 2002; 24: 126-130.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11827146

Related Downloads
Back to Listing