Measuring movement and mobility 

The scoping review, ‘Measures of movement and mobility used for adults in clinical practice and research’ catalogues and explores the measures that are available for movement and mobility, and assesses which concepts these measures cover. In particular, the review identifies the tools designed to measure either movement or mobility in adults and compares them to definitions of movement or mobility by mapping them to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF).  

Lead author of the review, Research Nurse Elizabeth Moulton, explains the significance of the scoping review: 

There are a large number of movement and mobility measures. It is important to understand what measures are available in order to select the one that is most appropriate for the occasion. By having a full catalogue of measures, it is also possible to avoid duplication or the creation of measures that are similar to an already tested measure. 

Moulton says that because the terms ‘movement’ and ‘mobility’ are often used together in research literature and can be confused, it is important to understand the difference between the two:  

Movement is the displacement of a part or the whole of the human body. Mobility is the ability to get to where you want or need to go. While mobility can be influenced by movement, movement is not the only factor that affects mobility, which is also highly dependent on social supports and the environment. If we assess movement instead of mobility in our patients, we risk discharging a patient who is unable to function in their environment. 

While conducting the scoping review, the authors found that many measures that have been created measure a combination of both movement and mobility, and that none of the measures that were assessed measured all aspects of either movement and mobility. Moulton cautions that researchers and clinicians need to ensure that the measures they are selecting cover the concept of interest to the extent that they need it covered: 

When selecting measures, clinicians and researchers should take great pains to ensure that the content of the measure matches the concept of interest. The tool name alone does not guarantee the concept measured. 

It was this need to ensure that the best measures are selected for concepts of interest that was the motivation behind conducting the scoping review: 

I’m a very thorough person. I wanted to study movement and mobility but wanted to be sure that I was selecting the best measures for my concepts of interest. I thought that creating a comprehensive list of movement and mobility measures that I could then compare would be the ideal way to select measures for the second half of my PhD thesis. Little did I know that a couple of years later my scoping review would be the main body of my thesis. 

From the 1357 studies that were included in the review, 651 tools designed to measure mobility or movement that were available to be coded for the ICF were identified. A total of 385 ICF codes were used when coding the tools. The large number of measures already established indicates that careful exploration of those existing tools should be made before developing a new tool. ‘There are a large number of existing measures of movement and mobility that should be explored before any more are created.’ 

In addition, despite the large number of measures that were mapped and catalogued by the scoping review authors, there were areas that were not covered at all: 

I was surprised that, given the number of measures that exist, there were some areas of movement and mobility that were not measured. For example, carrying something on your back (such as a backpack) was not covered by any measures.  

Measures of movement and mobility used in clinical practice and research: a scoping review

Moulton E, Wilson R, Silva AR, Kircher C, Petry S, Goldie C, et al. Measures of movement and mobility used in clinical practice and research: a scoping review. JBI Evid Synth. 2021;19(3):341-403.