Background and Purpose. People with balance disorders are characterized as having difficulty with transitional movements, such as the sit-to-stand movement. A valid and feasible tool is needed to help clinicians quantify the ability of people with balance disorders to perform transitional movements. The purpose of this study was to describe the concurrent and discriminative validity of data obtained with the Five-Times-Sit-to-Stand Test (FTSST). The FTSST was compared with the Activities-specific Balance Confidence Scale (ABC) and the Dynamic Gait Index (DGI). Subjects and Methods. Eighty-one subjects without balance disorders and 93 subjects with balance disorders were recruited for the study. Each subject was asked to stand from a 43-cm-high chair 5 times as quickly as possible. The ABC and DGI scores were recorded. Results. Subjects with balance disorders performed the FTSST more slowly than subjects without balance disorders. Discriminant analysis demonstrated that the FTSST correctly identified 65% of subjects with balance dysfunction, the ABC identified 80%, and the DGI identified 78%. The ability of the FTSST to identify subjects with balance dysfunction was better for subjects younger than 60 years of age (81%). Discussion and Conclusion. The FTSST displays discriminative and concurrent validity properties that make this test potentially useful in clinical decision making, although overall the ABC and the DGI are better than the FTSST at discriminating between subjects with and subjects without balance disorders.

Background: Uncompensated vestibular hypofunction can result in symptoms of dizziness, imbalance, and/or oscillopsia, gaze and gait instability, and impaired navigation and spatial orientation; thus, may negatively impact an individual's quality of life, ability to perform activities of daily living, drive, and work. It is estimated that one-third of adults in the United States have vestibular dysfunction and the incidence increases with age. There is strong evidence supporting vestibular physical therapy for reducing symptoms, improving gaze and postural stability, and improving function in individuals with vestibular hypofunction. The purpose of this revised clinical practice guideline is to improve quality of care and outcomes for individuals with acute, subacute, and chronic unilateral and bilateral vestibular hypofunction by providing evidence-based recommendations regarding appropriate exercises. Methods: These guidelines are a revision of the 2016 guidelines and involved a systematic review of the literature published since 2015 through June 2020 across 6 databases. Article types included meta-analyses, systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, case-control series, and case series for human subjects, published in English. Sixty-seven articles were identified as relevant to this clinical practice guideline and critically appraised for level of evidence. Results: Based on strong evidence, clinicians should offer vestibular rehabilitation to adults with unilateral and bilateral vestibular hypofunction who present with impairments, activity limitations, and participation restrictions related to the vestibular deficit. Based on strong evidence and a preponderance of harm over benefit, clinicians should not include voluntary saccadic or smooth-pursuit eye movements in isolation (ie, without head movement) to promote gaze stability. Based on moderate to strong evidence, clinicians may offer specific exercise techniques to target identified activity limitations and participation restrictions, including virtual reality or augmented sensory feedback. Based on strong evidence and in consideration of patient preference, clinicians should offer supervised vestibular rehabilitation. Based on moderate to weak evidence, clinicians may prescribe weekly clinic visits plus a home exercise program of gaze stabilization exercises consisting of a minimum of: (1) 3 times per day for a total of at least 12 minutes daily for individuals with acute/subacute unilateral vestibular hypofunction; (2) 3 to 5 times per day for a total of at least 20 minutes daily for 4 to 6 weeks for individuals with chronic unilateral vestibular hypofunction; (3) 3 to 5 times per day for a total of 20 to 40 minutes daily for approximately 5 to 7 weeks for individuals with bilateral vestibular hypofunction. Based on moderate evidence, clinicians may prescribe static and dynamic balance exercises for a minimum of 20 minutes daily for at least 4 to 6 weeks for individuals with chronic unilateral vestibular hypofunction and, based on expert opinion, for a minimum of 6 to 9 weeks for individuals with bilateral vestibular hypofunction. Based on moderate evidence, clinicians may use achievement of primary goals, resolution of symptoms, normalized balance and vestibular function, or plateau in progress as reasons for stopping therapy. Based on moderate to strong evidence, clinicians may evaluate factors, including time from onset of symptoms, comorbidities, cognitive function, and use of medication that could modify rehabilitation outcomes. Discussion: Recent evidence supports the original recommendations from the 2016 guidelines. There is strong evidence that vestibular physical therapy provides a clear and substantial benefit to individuals with unilateral and bilateral vestibular hypofunction. Limitations: The focus of the guideline was on peripheral vestibular hypofunction; thus, the recommendations of the guideline may not apply to individuals with central vestibular disorders. One criterion for study inclusion was that vestibular hypofunction was determined based on objective vestibular function tests. This guideline may not apply to individuals who report symptoms of dizziness, imbalance, and/or oscillopsia without a diagnosis of vestibular hypofunction. Disclaimer: These recommendations are intended as a guide to optimize rehabilitation outcomes for individuals undergoing vestibular physical therapy. The contents of this guideline were developed with support from the American Physical Therapy Association and the Academy of Neurologic Physical Therapy using a rigorous review process. The authors declared no conflict of interest and maintained editorial independence. Video Abstract available for more insights from the authors (see the Video, Supplemental Digital Content 1, available at: http://links.lww.com/JNPT/A369).

The purpose of this study was to determine if scores between 0 and 30 (mild), 31 and 60 (moderate), and 61 and 100 (severe) on the Dizziness Handicap Inventory (DHI) differentiated a person’s functional abilities. Retrospective case series. Tertiary balance outpatient center. Patients (n = 85; mean age, 61 years) with a variety of vestibular diagnoses participated. Patients completed the DHI, the Dynamic Gait Index (DGI), the 5 times sit to stand test (FTSST), the Activities-specific Balance Confidence (ABC) scale, gait speed, and the Timed “Up & Go” (TUG) during the same session. Reported numbers of falls within the last 4 weeks were recorded. The DGI, FTSST, ABC, gait speed, TUG, and gait speed were compared among DHI groups. Significant differences were identified using an analysis of variance between DHI groups on the DGI, the FTSST, ABC, and number of falls (p < 0.05). A significant difference was found between DHI groups (mild vs. severe and moderate vs. severe) on the DGI (p < 0.05) with greater DHI scores exhibiting more impaired walking. The FTSST was different between DHI groups mild and severe and DHI groups moderate and severe (p < 0.05), with slower FTSST scores with higher DHI scores. Reported falls were higher among the severe DHI group and the other 2 DHI groups (p < 0.05). All 3 DHI groupings were different from each other on the ABC (p < 0.001). Patients who perceive a greater handicap as a result of dizziness demonstrate greater functional impairment than patients who perceive less handicap from dizziness.

The purpose of this study was to determine the sensitivity and specificity of the Timed "Up & Go" (TUG) and Dynamic Gait Index in identifying self-reported fallers among persons with vestibular dysfunction. One hundred three patient charts were included from a tertiary vestibular physical therapy practice. The patients ranged in age from 14–90 years and had vestibular diagnoses, falls reported in the patient chart, and completed the TUG and/or the Dynamic Gait Index (DGI). Thirty-one persons reported falling one or more times in the previous 6 months during their initial assessment. Persons who took longer than 13.5 seconds to perform the TUG test were 3.7 times more likely to have reported a fall in the previous 6 months. Those persons with scores less than or equal to 18 on the DGI were 2.7 times (p = 0.03) more likely to have reported a fall in the previous 6 months. The sensitivity of the DGI at 18 or less was 70% and the specificity was 51%. People who scored greater than 11.1 seconds on the TUG were 5times (p = 0.001) more likely to have reported a fall in the previous 6 months. Sensitivity (80%) and specificity (56%) were calculated for TUG scores of greater than 11.1 seconds. The TUG and the DGI appear to be helpful in identifying fall risk in persons with vestibular dysfunction. Slower scores on the TUG (> 11.1 seconds) and lower scores on the DGI (18) correlated with reports of falls in persons with vestibular dysfunction.