Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2015 Feb 17.
Published in final edited form as: J Rehabil Res Dev. 2014;51(2):263–274. doi: 10.1682/JRRD.2013.03.0075

Table 2.

Performance on TUG tasks; data from 3 studies

Current data
N = 120, mild to mod. cognitive impairment
Shumway-Cook et al. (2000)
N = 30, neurologically healthy
Bohannon (2006)
N = 4395, Meta-analysis of
21 studies with healthy participants
Age 60–90 Median (Interquart. Range) Age > 65 Age 60–99
Time (in seconds) M (SD) Non-fallers Fallers (>1 fall) Age 60–99 70–79 80–99
M (SD) M (SD) M (95%CI) M (95%CI) M (95%CI)
TUG (n = 120) 13.35 (6.02) 11.58 (9.24–15.64) 8.4 (1.7) 22.2 (9.3) 9.4 (8.9–9.9) 9.2 (8.2–10.2) 11.3(10.0–12.7)
TUGman (n = 109) 15.24 (6.40) 13.63 (10.45–18.30) 9.7 (1.6) 27.2 (11)
TUGcog n = 118) 16.73 (8.09) 15.02 (10.83–20.22)

Note. TUG = Timed Up and Go Task; TUGman = Timed Up and Go with manual task (holding a cup of water; TUGcog = Timed Up and Go cognitive task (counting backwards from 50).

Interquart. = interquartile

Because a small number of participants performed these timed tasks considerably more slowly than their peers, mean and standard deviation do not necessarily accurately represent the central tendency and range of the sample. Therefore, medians and interquartile ranges are also provided.

CI = confidence interval