Primary Image

RehabMeasures Instrument

Modified Gait Efficacy Scale

Last Updated

Purpose

The mGES addresses older adults’ perception of their level of confidence in walking during challenging circumstances.

Link to Instrument

Instrument Details

Acronym mGES

Assessment Type

Patient Reported Outcomes

Administration Mode

Paper & Pencil

Cost

Free

Key Descriptions

  • The original Gait Efficacy Scale (GES) was developed to capture an individual’s self-efficacy to perform walking tasks.
  • Efficacy expectations may precede performance of walking and may influence when, where and how the walking is performed.
  • Specifically with walking, low self-efficacy may limit older adults frequency of walking or environments in which they walk, regardless of their walking ability.
  • These limitations can lead to further decline in actual and perceived ability.
  • The mGES was developed to include items that are encountered in everyday walking.
  • In the original GES, 4 of the 10 items focus on mobility related to the escalator.
  • The mGES replaced those items with items pertaining to:
    1) Walking on level surfaces and grass
    2) Stepping over an obstacle
    3) Stepping up and down a curb
    4) Ascending and descending stairs with and without a handrail
    5) Walking a long distance
  • The current mGES is a 10-item questionnaire measuring confidence in the following circumstances:
    1) Walking safely on a level surface such as hardwood floors
    2) Walking safely on grass
    3) Walking safely over an obstacle in your path
    4) Safely stepping down from a curb
    5) Safely stepping up on a curb
    6) Safely walking up stairs if you are holding on to a railing
    7) Safely walking down stairs if you are holding on to a railing
    8) Safely walking up stairs if you are NOT holding on to a railing
    9) Safely walking down stairs if you are NOT holding on to a railing
    10) Safely walking a long distance such as ? mile
  • Items are scored individually on a 10-point Likert scale with 1 denoting no confidence and 10 representing complete confidence giving a total score ranging from 10-100 with 100 representing complete confidence in all tasks.

Number of Items

10

Equipment Required

  • Paper and Pen

Time to Administer

Less than 5 minutes

Required Training

No Training

Age Ranges

Adult

18 - 64

years

Elderly Adult

65 +

years

Instrument Reviewers

Initially reviewed by Alicia Esposito, PT, DPT, NCS & the PD EDGE Task Force of the Neurology Section of the APTA

ICF Domain

Activity
Participation

Measurement Domain

Activities of Daily Living

Professional Association Recommendation

Recommendations for use of the instrument from the Neurology Section of the American Physical Therapy Association’s Multiple Sclerosis Taskforce (MSEDGE), Parkinson’s Taskforce (PD EDGE), Spinal Cord Injury Taskforce (PD EDGE), Stroke Taskforce (StrokEDGE), Traumatic Brain Injury Taskforce (TBI EDGE), and Vestibular Taskforce (Vestibular EDGE) are listed below. These recommendations were developed by a panel of research and clinical experts using a modified Delphi process.

For detailed information about how recommendations were made, please visit:  

Abbreviations:

 

HR

Highly Recommend

R

Recommend

LS / UR

Reasonable to use, but limited study in target group  / Unable to Recommend

NR

Not Recommended

Recommendations Based on Parkinson Disease Hoehn and Yahr stage: 

 

I

II

III

IV

V

PD EDGE

LS/UR

LS/UR

LS/UR

LS/UR

NR

 

Recommendations for entry-level physical therapy education and use in research:

 

Students should learn to administer this tool? (Y/N)

Students should be exposed to tool? (Y/N)

Appropriate for use in intervention research studies? (Y/N)

Is additional research warranted for this tool (Y/N)

PD EDGE

No

No

Yes

Not reported

Considerations

Recommended for individuals who are ambulatory and able to access their community.

Do you see an error or have a suggestion for this instrument summary? Please e-mail us!

Older Adults and Geriatric Care

back to Populations

Standard Error of Measurement (SEM)

Community Dwelling Elderly: 
(Newell et al, 2012; n = 102; age: 78.6 (6.1 years); body max index: 29.4 (5.3) kg/m2; height: 1.6 (0.1) meters; sex: female: = 76 (74.5%); race: Caucasian: n = 89 (87.2%); marital status: married: 62 (60.8%); education: college degree: 74 (72.5%); employment: professional/technical: 44 (43.1%)

  • SEM: 5.23 (95% CI = 4.10, 7.22)

Normative Data

Community Dwelling Elderly: 

(Newell et al, 2012) 

Measure

N

Mean

Median

SD

mGES total sample

102 

79.25 

86.50 

19.25 

mGES subsample, first administration

26 

80.65 

90.50 

20.03 

mGES subsample, second administration

26 

78.00 

88.00 

21.81

Test/Retest Reliability

Community Dwelling Elderly:

(Newell et al, 2012) 

  • Excellent test-retest reliability within the 1 month period: ICC = 0.93

Internal Consistency

Community Dwelling Elderly:

(Newell et al, 2012) 

  • Excellent internal consistency: Cronbach alpha = 0.94

Construct Validity

Community Dwelling Elderly:

(Newell et al, 2012) 

  • Excellent correlation with the FES (Falls Efficacy Scale): r = -0.80 
  • Excellent correlation with the ABC (Activities Balance Confidence Scale):  = 0.88 
  • Adequate correlation with the SAFFE (Survey of Activities and Fear of Falling in the Elderly) Activity: r = 0.59 
  • Excellent correlation with the SAFFE Fear of Falling: r = -0.71 
  • Adequate correlation with the SAFFE Restriction: r = -0.54 
  • Excellent correlation with the Late Life FDI (Function and Disability Instrument) Overall Function: 0.88 
  • Adequate correlation with the SAFFE Disability Frequency: r = 0.32 
  • Excellent correlation with the SAFFE disability limitations: r = 0.63 
  • Excellent correlation with gait speed: r = 0.64 
  • Excellent correlation with the 6MWT (6 minute walk test): r = 0.60 
  • Adequate correlation with the figure of 8 walk test: r = -0.52 
  • Poor correlation with the TUG: r = -0.18 
  • Poor correlation with the Narrow Walk Test: r = -0.15 
  • Excellent correlation with the Obstacle Walk Test: r = -0.61 
  • Adequate correlation with the Simple WWT (walking while talking) test: r = -0.53 
  • Adequate correlation with the Complex WWT test: r = -0.38

Floor/Ceiling Effects

Community Dwelling Elderly:

(Newell et al, 2012) 

  • Adequate ceiling effect: 7.8% - 11.5%

Bibliography

Newell, A. M., VanSwearingen, J. M., et al. (2012). "The modified Gait Efficacy Scale: establishing the psychometric properties in older adults." Phys Ther 92(2): 318-328.