Purpose
The mGES addresses older adults’ perception of their level of confidence in walking during challenging circumstances.
Link to Instrument
Acronym
mGES
Primary Image
Modified Gait Efficacy Scale
Populations
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 TrainingAge Ranges
Adult
18 - 64
yearsElderly Adult
65 +
yearsInstrument Reviewers
Initially reviewed by Alicia Esposito, PT, DPT, NCS & the PD EDGE Task Force of the Neurology Section of the APTA
ICF Domain
ActivityParticipation
Measurement Domain
Activities of Daily LivingProfessional 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 PopulationsStandard 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: n = 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
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.