Table 1 Details of included studies. aAge range and/or mean age (and standard deviation) as reported; ETUG = Expanded timed up and go; 3M-ST = 3-minute step test; SoT = Sorensen test; 360-TT = 360\(^{\circ }\) Turn test; BBS = Berg balance scale; FR = Functional reach test; LR = Lateral reach test; ST = Step test; TUG = Timed up and go; 6M-WT = 6-minute walk test; FN = Finger-nose test; FT = Finger-tapping test; MABC2 = Movement Assessment Battery for Children - Second Edition; CR = Coin rotation task; POMA-G = Tinetti Performance-Oriented Mobility Assessment Gait Scale; GMFM-88 = Gross motor function measure-88; 2M-ST = 2-minute step test; 30s-STS = 30 second sit-to-stand test; 30s-AC = 30-second arm curl test; 1M-PU = 1-minute push-up test; 1M-SU = 1-minute sit-up test; V-SR = V-sit and reach test; WS = Wall sit test; 5XSTS = 5-times sit-to-stand test; KPU = Kneeling push-up test; SITFE = Shirado-Ito trunk flexor endurance test; SB = Standing balance; 4m-WT = 4-meter walk test; CU = Curl-up test; LB = Lateral bridge test; MPU = Modified push-up test; PT = Plank test; 5m-FW = 5-meter fast-paced walk; CRT = Calf raise test; SCT = Stair climb test; SLS = Single leg stance; DGI = Dynamic gait index; FGA = Functional gait assessment; 10XSTS = 10-times sit-to-stand test; UB = Unipedal balance test; 9-PB = 9-hole pegboard test; S-TUG = Supine-timed up and go; SLJ = Standing long jump; 1M-STS = 1-minute sit-to-stand test; CST = Chester step test; SRT = Sitting and rising test; GIFT = Gilboa functional test; SAR = Stand and reach; ICC = Intraclass correlation; r = Pearson´s correlation coefficient; \(\alpha ^{\textrm{a}}\) = Cronach´s alpha; \(\beta\) = Beta regression coefficient; PA = Percentage agreement; IPAQ = International physical activity questionnaire; rho = Spearman correlation coefficient; \(\kappa\) = Cohen´s kappa; \(\alpha ^{\textrm{b}}\) = Krippendorf´s alpha; DCDQ´07/LDCDQ = Developmental coordination disorder questionnaire 2007/Little developmental coordination disorder questionnaire; DPSQ = Drawing proficiency screening questionnaire
From: Remote assessment of physical fitness via videoconferencing: a systematic review
Study | Country | Sample (% female) | Agea | Health characteristic | Physical fitness tests | Study quality | Outcomes of interest | Results |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Botolfsen et al., 2008 [16] | Norway | 28 (82.14) | 80.0 (4.14) | Home-dwelling older adults with impaired mobility | ETUG | Moderate | Validity (remote vs. face-to-face) | High (r = 0.85) |
Interrater reliability (remote vs. remote) | ETUG total time and subtasks: Moderate to excellent (ICC = 0.55–0.96) | |||||||
Intrarater reliability (remote vs. remote) | ETUG total time and subtasks: Good to excellent (ICC = 0.75–0.97) | |||||||
Test-retest reliability (remote vs. remote) | ETUG total time and subtasks: Moderate to good (ICC = 0.54–0.85) | |||||||
Cox et al., 2013 [17] | Australia | 10 (50) | 32 (7) | Cystic fibrosis | 3M-ST | Strong | Feasibility (remote) | 100% completion rate; 90% indicated no preference for in-person versus remote assessment |
PalacÃn-MarÃn et al., 2013 [18] | Spain | 15 (60) | 37 | Low back pain | SoT | Strong | Criterion validity (remote vs. face-to-face) | Acceptable (\(\alpha ^{\textrm{a}}\)= 0.796) |
Interrater reliability (remote vs. face-to-face) | Excellent (ICC = 0.92;\(\alpha ^{\textrm{a}}\)= 0.93) | |||||||
Intrarater reliability (remote vs. remote) | Excellent (ICC = 0.94;\(\alpha ^{\textrm{a}}\)= 0.95) | |||||||
Russell et al., 2013 [19] | Australia | 12 (50) | 45–76; 66.1 (8.5) | Parkinson disease | 360-TT; BBS; FR; LR; ST; TUG | Weak | Interrater reliability (remote vs. face-to-face) | Overall excellent (ICC\(\ge\)0.96) |
Intrarater reliability (remote vs. remote) | Overall excellent (ICC\(\ge\)0.98) | |||||||
Hwang et al., 2017 [20] | Australia | 17 (12); 69 (12) | 39–87; | Stable chronic heart failure | 6M-WT; TUG | Moderate | Concurrent validity (remote vs. face-to-face) | No difference between remote and face-to-face assessment (p> 0.05) |
6M-WT: Good (ICC = 0.90) | ||||||||
TUG: Good (ICC = 0.85) | ||||||||
Interrater reliability (remote vs. face-to-face) | 6M-WT: Excellent (ICC> 0.99) | |||||||
TUG: Excellent (ICC = 0.95) | ||||||||
Intrarater reliability (remote vs. remote) | 6M-WT: Excellent (ICC > 0.99) | |||||||
TUG: Excellent (ICC = 0.96) | ||||||||
Hoenig et al., 2018 [21] | USA | 50 (20) | 61.3 (1.8) | Veterans with impaired fine/gross motor coordination | FN; FT | Moderate | Criterion validity (remote vs. face-to-face) | FN: Excellent (\(\beta\)= 0.97–1.00) |
FT: Poor to excellent (\(\beta\)= 0.35–0.94) | ||||||||
Interrater reliability (remote vs. remote) | FN: Good to excellent (ICC = 0.88–0.99) | |||||||
FT: Moderate to excellent (ICC = 0.59–0.99) | ||||||||
Nicola et al., 2018 [22] | Australia | 59 (47) | 5–11 | School children without any diagnoses | MABC2 | Moderate | Concurrent validity (remote vs. face-to-face) | Unacceptable to high level of agreement (PA = 31.67–100%); No difference between remote and face-to-face assessment (p = 0.87) |
Feasibility (remote) | 100% completon rate | |||||||
Cabrera-Martos et al., 2019 [23] | Spain | 21 (44.7) | 70.9 (9.6) | Parkinson disease | CR; FT | Strong | Interrater reliability (remote vs. face-to-face) | CR: Good to excellent (ICC = 0.89–0.91) |
FT: Excellent (ICC = 0.99–1.00) | ||||||||
Venkataraman et al., 2020 [24] | USA | 42 (19) | 60.79 (12.25) | Veterans with impaired mobility | POMA-G | Moderate | Criterion validity (remote vs. face-to-face) | Moderate (\(\beta\)= 0.62–0.80) |
Interrater reliability (remote vs. face-to-face) | Moderate (ICC = 0.66–0.77) | |||||||
Gavazzi et al., 2021 [25] | USA | 21 (57.1) | 1–52; 10.1 (11.0) | Leukodys-trophy | GMFM-88 | Moderate | Interrater reliability (remote vs. remote) | Excellent (ICC = 0.996) |
Intrarater reliability (remote vs. remote) | Excellent (ICC = 0.999) | |||||||
Ogawa et al., 2021 [26] | USA | 55 (14.6) | 74.6 (8.1) | Community-dwelling veterans | 2M-ST; 30s-STS; 30s-AC | Strong | Interrater reliability (remote vs. remote) | 2M-ST: Excellent (ICC = 0.999) |
30s-STS: Excellent (ICC = 0.989) | ||||||||
30s-AC: Excellent (ICC = 0.992) | ||||||||
Bhagat et al., 2022 [27] | India | 100 (39) | 43.75 (11.31) | Diabetes mellitus type 2 | 1M-PU; 1M-SU; V-SR ;WS | Poor | Feasibility (remote) | 100% completion rate; no safety issues |
Bowman et al., 2022 [28] | Australia | 30 (41) | 62.5 | Cancer (various forms) | 30s-STS | Moderate | Convergent validity (remote vs. remote) | Moderate association with physical activity IPAQ (rho = 0.46 (\(p<0.01\))) |
Discriminant validity (remote vs. remote) | No association with perceived exertion (rho = −0.12 (<0.53)) | |||||||
Feasibility (remote) | 94% completion rate; no safety issues | |||||||
Espin et al., 2022 [29] | Spain | 96 (50) | 18–65 | Healthy adults | 5XSTS; KPU; SITFE | Moderate | Interrater Reliability (remote vs. remote) | 5XSTS: Excellent (ICC = 0.99) |
KPU: Excellent (ICC = 0.96) | ||||||||
SITFE: Excellent (ICC = 0.97) | ||||||||
Test-retest reliability (remote vs. remote) | 5XSTS: Excellent (ICC = 0.92–0.98) | |||||||
KPU: Excellent (ICC = 0.96–0.98) | ||||||||
SITFE: Excellent (ICC = 0.93) | ||||||||
Feasibility (remote) | 100% completion rate; short test duration; excellent feasibility score (4.5–4.7 of 5) | |||||||
Fyfe et al., 2022 [30] | Australia | 38 (63.15) | 69.8 (3.8) | Community-dwelling older adults | 5XSTS; 30s-STS; SB | Strong | Feasibility (remote) | 100% completion rate |
Guidarelli et al., 2022 [31] | USA | 118 (28.25) | 62.5 (11.5) | Breast or prostate cancer survivors and healthy adults | 4m-WT; 5XSTS; SB; TUG | Strong | Interrater reliability (remote vs. remote) | 4m-WT: Moderate (ICC = 0.62) |
5XSTS: Moderate (ICC = 0.65) | ||||||||
SB: Unacceptable (\(\alpha ^{\textrm{b}}\)= 0.59) | ||||||||
TUG: Excellent (ICC = 0.98) | ||||||||
Intrarater reliability (remote vs. remote) | 4m-WT: Good (ICC = 0.87) | |||||||
5XSTS: Excellent (ICC = 0.92) | ||||||||
SB: Nearly perfect (\(\kappa\)= 0.82) | ||||||||
TUG: Excellent (ICC = 0.96) | ||||||||
Güngör et al., 2022 [32] | Turkey | 80 (65) | 18–40; 26.18 (4.83) | Healthy adults | 30s-STS; CU; FR; LB; MPU; PT; TUG | Moderate | Validity (remote vs. face-to-face) | 30s-STS: High (r = 0.92) |
CU: High (r = 0.93) | ||||||||
FR: High (r = 0.96) | ||||||||
LB: High (r = 0.92–0.94) | ||||||||
MPU: High (r = 0.91) | ||||||||
PT: High (r = 0.93) | ||||||||
TUG: High (r = 0.94) | ||||||||
Test-retest reliability (remote vs. remote) | 30s-STS: Excellent (ICC = 0.95) | |||||||
CU: Excellent (ICC = 0.96) | ||||||||
FR: Excellent (ICC = 0.97) | ||||||||
LB: Excellent (ICC = 0.91–0.93) | ||||||||
MPU: Excellent (ICC = 0.94) | ||||||||
PT: Excellent (ICC = 0.97) | ||||||||
TUG: Excellent (ICC = 0.97) | ||||||||
Feasibility (remote) | 100% completion rate | |||||||
Lawford et al., 2024 [33] | Australia | 57 (70) | 63.1 (9.3) | Chronic lower limb musculoskeletal pain | 5m-FW; 30s-STS; CRT; SCT; SLS; ST; TUG | Strong | Test-retest reliability (remote vs. remote) | 5m-FW: Moderate (ICC = 0.71) |
30s-STS: Good (ICC = 0.77) | ||||||||
CRT: Good (ICC = 0.84–0.85) | ||||||||
SCT: Excellent (ICC = 0.91) | ||||||||
SLS: Good (ICC = 0.69–0.84) | ||||||||
ST: Good (ICC = 0.79–0.81) | ||||||||
TUG: Good (ICC = 0.86) | ||||||||
Pelicioni et al., 2022 [34] | New Zealand | 15 (53.33) | 64–78; 71.7 | Healthy older adults | BBS; DGI; FGA; TUG | Moderate | Criterion validity (remote vs. face-to-face) | Live telehealth : |
BBS : Moderate (r = −0.52 (\(p < 0.05\))) | ||||||||
DGI : Moderate (r = −0.53 (\(p < 0.05\))) | ||||||||
FGA : Moderate (r = −0.68 (\(p < 0.05\))) | ||||||||
TUG : Moderate (r = −0.55–0.64 (\(p < 0.05\))) | ||||||||
Recorded telehealth : | ||||||||
BBS : Moderate (r = −0.56 (\(p < 0.05\))) | ||||||||
DGI : Moderate (r = −0.69 (\(p < 0.05\))) | ||||||||
FGA : Moderate (r = −0.69 (\(p < 0.05\))) | ||||||||
TUG : Moderate to High (r = −0.64–0.71 (\(p < 0.05\))) | ||||||||
Interrater reliability (remote vs. remote) | BBS : Excellent (ICC = 0.96) | |||||||
DGI : Good (ICC = 0.85) | ||||||||
FGA : Good (ICC = 0.80) | ||||||||
TUG : Excellent (ICC = 1.00) | ||||||||
Intrarater reliability (remote vs. remote) | BBS : Good (ICC = 0.78–0.82) | |||||||
DGI : Good (ICC = 0.86–0.88) | ||||||||
FGA : Good (ICC = 0.87) | ||||||||
TUG : Good (ICC = 0.79–0.85) | ||||||||
Peyrusqué et al., 2022 [35] | Canada | 15 (60) | 69.3 (3.6) | Healthy older adults | 4m-WT; 5XSTS; 10XSTS; 30s-STS; TUG; UB | Moderate | Relative reliability (remote vs. face-to-face) | 4m-WT: Moderate to good (ICC = 0.62–0.77) |
5XSTS: Excellent (ICC = 0.96) | ||||||||
10XSTS: Excellent (ICC = 0.99) | ||||||||
30s-STS: Excellent (ICC = 0.97) | ||||||||
TUG: Good to Excellent (ICC = 0.83–0.93) | ||||||||
UB: Good (ICC = 0.79) | ||||||||
Aktan et al., 2023 [36] | Turkey | 50 (38) | 54.5 (6.3) | Diabetes mellitus type 2 | 30s-STS | Strong | Interrater reliability (remote vs. face-to-face) | 30s-STS: Excellent (ICC =0.93) |
Button et al., 2023 [37] | USA | 15 (43) | 3.4 (0.5) | Heathy preschool children | 9-PB; S-TUG; SLJ; UB | Moderate | Validity (remote vs. face-to-face) | No statistical differences between remote and face-to-face measures (p = 0.36–0.90) |
9-PB: Small (r = −0.75- −0.151) | ||||||||
S-TUG: Medium (r = 0.485) | ||||||||
SLJ: High (r = 0.619) | ||||||||
UB: Medium to high (r = 0.375–0.740) | ||||||||
Hoge et al., 2023 [38] | USA | 30 (93.3) | 46.2 (11.9) | Systemic lupus erythematosus | 4m-WT; 5XSTS; SB | Moderate | Test-retest reliability (remote vs. face-to-face) | 4m-WT: Poor (ICC = 0.23–0.48) |
5XSTS: Moderate (ICC = 0.66) | ||||||||
SB: Excellent (ICC = 0.91) | ||||||||
Mavronasou et al., 2024 [39] | Greece | 25 (40) | 53 (10) | Post-COVID-19 symptoms | 1M-STS; 4m-WT; 5XSTS; CST | Moderate | Interrater reliability (remote vs. face-to-face) | 1M-STS: Excellent (ICC = 0.977) |
4m-WT: Good (ICC = 0.777) | ||||||||
5XSTS: Good (ICC = 0.792) | ||||||||
CST: Good (ICC = 0.871) | ||||||||
Mehta et al., 2023 [40] | USA | 52 (40.4) | 18–61; 28.3 (11.3) | Healthy adults | 4m-WT; 30s-STS; ST; TUG | Strong | Interrater reliability (remote vs. face-to-face) | 4m-WT: Good (ICC = 0.833) |
30s-STS: Excellent (ICC = 0.947) | ||||||||
ST: Excellent (ICC = 0.932) | ||||||||
TUG: Good (ICC = 0.867) | ||||||||
Ng et al., 2023 [41] | Singapore | 63 (42.85) | 26.1 (7.3) | Healthy adults | 1M-STS; 30s-STS | Poor | Feasibility (remote) | 100% completion rate |
Núñez-Cortés et al., 2023 [42] | Spain | 79 (86.10) | 24–52; | Long COVID | 30s-STS | Moderate | Feasibility (remote) | 100% completion rate |
Pepera et al., 2023 [43] | Greece | 23 (25) | 39–85; 61 (13) | Diabetes mellitus type 2 | 6M-WT | Strong | Validity (remote vs. face-to-face) | High (r = 0.76 (\(p < 0.001\))) |
Test-retest reliability (remote vs. remote) | Excellent (ICC = 0.98) | |||||||
Silva et al., 2023 [44] | Brazil | 30 (86.7) | 69.77 (6.6) | Community-dwelling older adults | 5XSTS; 30s-STS; SRT | Moderate | Intrarater reliability (remote vs. remote) | 5XSTS: Excellent (ICC = 0.93) |
30s-STS: Excellent (ICC = 0.91–0.98) | ||||||||
SRT: Good (ICC = 0.90) | ||||||||
Sinvani et al., 2023 [45] | Israel | 157 (56.7) | 3–7; 4.98 (1.13) | Healthy children | GIFT | Poor | Concurrent validitiy (remote vs. remote) | Low to medium correlation with DCDQ´07/LDCDQ (r = 0.29 (\(p < 0.001\))) |
Small to medium correlation with DPSQ (r = −0.35 (\(p < 0.001\))) | ||||||||
Construct validitiy (remote vs. remote) | Medium to high correlation with age (r = 0.33–0.57 (\(p < 0.05\))) | |||||||
Girls have better performance than boys (\(p<0.05\)) | ||||||||
40 (58) | 3–7; 5.17 (1.06) |  |  |  | Interrater reliability (remote vs. remote) | Excellent (r = 0.97 (\(p < 0.001\))) | ||
Steffens et al., 2023 [46] | Australia | 37 (64.9) | 54.00 | Gastrointestinal cancer | 5XSTS | Moderate | Interrater reliability (remote vs. face-to-face) | Excellent (ICC = 0.957 (\(p < 0.001\))) |
Feasibility | 100% comletion rate; no safety issues | |||||||
Buckinx et al., 2024 [47] | Belgium | 45 (48.9) | 77.7 (7.7) | Healthy older adults | 2M-ST; 4m-WT; 5XSTS; 10XSTS; 30s-STS; TUG; SAR; UB | Poor | Interrater reliability (remote vs. remote) | 2M-ST: Excellent (ICC = 0.92) |
4m-WT: Excellent (ICC = 0.91–0.98) | ||||||||
5XSTS: Excellent (ICC = 0.98) | ||||||||
10XSTS: Excellent (ICC = 0.99) | ||||||||
30s-STS: Excellent (ICC = 0.95) | ||||||||
SAR: Excellent (ICC = 1.00) | ||||||||
TUG: Excellent (ICC = 0.92–0.97) | ||||||||
UB: Excellent (ICC = 0.98) | ||||||||
Intrarater reliability (remote vs. face-to-face) | 2M-ST: Good (ICC = 0.85) | |||||||
4m-WT: Good to excellent (ICC = 0.88–0.96) | ||||||||
5XSTS: Excellent (ICC = 0.97) | ||||||||
10XSTS: Excellent (ICC = 0.97) | ||||||||
30s-STS: Excellent (ICC = 0.93) | ||||||||
SAR: Excellent (ICC = 1.00) | ||||||||
TUG: Excellent (ICC = 0.91–0.95) | ||||||||
UB: Excellent (ICC = 0.93) | ||||||||
Gell et al., 2024 [48] | USA | 39 (79) | 61–84; 70.4 (5.7) | Cancer survivors | 5XSTS; 30s-STS; SB | Strong | Feasibility (remote) | 95% completion rate |
Lai et al., 2024 [11] | USA | 19 (44) | Cerebral palsy 17.4 (1.9) | Healthy and cerebral palsy | 5XSTS; 6M-WT; TUG | Strong | Convergent validity (remote vs. face-to-face) | 5XSTS: Excellent (ICC = 0.95 (p = 0.01)) |
6M-WT: Good (ICC = 0.83 (p = 0.18)) | ||||||||
6M-WT: High (r = 0.83 (\(p < 0.001\))) | ||||||||
TUG: Excellent (ICC = 0.92 (p = 0.01) | ||||||||
10 (50) | Healthy 19.3 (1.2) | Interrater reliability (remote vs remote) | 5XSTS: Excellent (ICC = 0.998 (\(p < 0.001\))) | |||||
6M-WT: Excellent (ICC = 0.999 (\(p < 0.001\))) | ||||||||
TUG: Excellent (ICC = 0.999 (\(p < 0.001\))) | ||||||||
Feasibility (remote) | 100% completion rate; no safety issues; teleassessment took 20% longer (p = 0.003); people with cerebral palsy needed more time (p = 0.01) | |||||||
Tütüneken et al., 2024 [49] | Turkey | 61 (27.9) | 59.11 (10.05) | Stroke | 30s-STS; TUG | Strong | Validity (remote vs. face-to-face) | 30s-STS: High (r = 0.94 (\(p < 0.001\))) |
TUG: High (r = 0.97 (\(p < 0.001\))) | ||||||||
Interrater reliability (remote vs. remote) | 30s-STS: Good (\(\alpha ^{\textrm{b}}\)= 0.981) | |||||||
TUG: Good (\(\alpha ^{\textrm{b}}\)= 0.996) | ||||||||
Test-retest reliability (remote vs. remote) | 30s-STS: Excellent (ICC = 0.992) | |||||||
TUG: Excellent (ICC = 0.998) |