Gait speed: how to measure it and read the norms

For physical therapists and other clinicians testing adults: gait speed is distance divided by time, and the Academy of Neurologic Physical Therapy’s core-measures guideline recommends timing the central 6 m of a 10 m walkway, two trials at comfortable speed and two at fast speed, averaged and recorded in meters per second.⁠¹

How do you measure gait speed with the 10-meter walk test?

Time the patient over the central 6 m of a 10 m walkway, starting the clock when any part of the foot crosses the plane of the first timing line and stopping it when any part of the foot crosses the line at 6 m. That is the Steffen and Seney protocol, which the Academy of Neurologic Physical Therapy’s guideline on a core set of outcome measures recommends for adults with neurologic conditions, timed to the nearest hundredth of a second.⁠¹ The guideline asks for two trials at the comfortable speed, with the instruction "walk at your own comfortable speed and stop when you reach the far line," then two trials with the instruction "walk as fast as you can safely walk," and for each speed the two trials are averaged and recorded in meters per second.⁠¹

1. Mark the walkway. Tape a 10 m straight path and two timing lines inside it, so 6 m are timed and 2 m sit before and after the timed section.⁠¹
2. Give the comfortable-speed instruction. Use the same words every session; the guideline’s wording asks the patient to walk at their own comfortable speed and stop at the far line.⁠^1,3
3. Time two comfortable trials. Start and stop the stopwatch as a foot crosses each timing line, to the hundredth of a second.⁠¹
4. Time two fast trials. Ask the patient to walk as fast as they safely can, and time two more trials.⁠¹
5. Stay behind the patient. Walk at least half a step behind so your pace does not set theirs, and give only the least assistance needed.⁠¹⁰
6. Calculate and record. Divide 6 m by each time, average the two trials for each speed, and record both speeds in m/s with the device and assistance used.⁠^1,10

An assistive device is permitted and is documented, and the Shirley Ryan AbilityLab summary of the test adds that the device must be recorded from test to test and that the level of assistance recorded should reflect the greatest amount given during the test.⁠^1,10 When a patient cannot walk, the guideline asks for a score of 0 rather than a blank, so the record shows the attempt.⁠¹

Comfortable or fast gait speed: which to test?

Both, when the patient can do both safely. A clinical review of walking speed testing recommends assessing maximal walking speed in addition to self-selected speed as part of a comprehensive evaluation, and points out that in the United States a speed of 1.32 m/s or greater is needed to cross a street safely.⁠³ The same review describes self-selected speed as indicative of current functional status and maximal speed as information about a person’s capabilities in the community, the reserve called on when a light changes or a bus is about to leave.⁠³

Instructions change the result, so keep them identical. The same review states that instructions should be consistent across sessions because differing methods have produced significantly different results.⁠³ Write the exact wording into the record or the clinic’s test protocol, and use it for every re-test.

Can the 4-meter walk replace the 10-meter walk test?

No. In 43 healthy older adults with a mean age of 84.3, both the 4-meter and 10-meter walk tests had excellent test-retest reliability, but the two disagreed by up to about plus or minus 0.15 to 0.17 m/s, and the authors concluded the 4-meter test does not agree closely enough with the 10-meter test to be used interchangeably.⁠² The practical rule from a later review is that a 4-meter result can be compared with another 4-meter result across sessions, but not with a 10-meter result when judging change over time.⁠³

The 4-meter walk still has its place. The European consensus on sarcopenia (EWGSOP2) describes the 4-m usual walking speed test, timed by stopwatch or an electronic device, as a commonly used gait speed test, and uses a single cut-off of 0.8 m/s or slower as an indicator of severe sarcopenia.⁠¹¹ In a small treatment room or a home visit, a 4-meter course may be the only straight path available; record it as such and keep using it with that patient.

Where space allows a choice, a timed distance of 5 to 10 meters is what the review recommends clinicians consider.⁠³ Choose one distance per patient and do not switch mid-episode, since a change in distance can look like a change in the patient.

What difference does a static or dynamic start make to gait speed?

A static start, timed from a standstill, gives a slower speed than a dynamic start, where the patient is already walking when the clock starts. The review of walking speed testing states that speeds calculated without an acceleration phase are slower than those from dynamic-start protocols, and suggests acceleration phases of about 2.5 meters for self-selected speed and 3.25 meters for maximal speed.⁠³ The guideline’s 10-meter protocol, timing the central 6 m of 10 m, leaves 2 m before the timed section and 2 m after it.⁠¹

Turns belong outside the timed distance too. The review recommends a straight path, to capture steady-state walking rather than the slowing and speeding up around a turn.⁠³ The start matters less in some groups: the Shirley Ryan AbilityLab summary reports no significant difference between static and dynamic starts in chronic incomplete spinal cord injury.⁠¹⁰ For comparison with published norms, though, match the norm’s own method, as the next section explains.

Does a stopwatch measure gait speed accurately enough?

Yes, for clinical use. In the 4-meter and 10-meter comparison, stopwatch and automatic timer measurements were equally reliable, with intraclass correlations of 0.99 to 1.00, and the review of testing protocols states that handheld stopwatches can be used for timing.⁠^2,3 The larger sources of error are the walkway, the start and the instructions, not the stopwatch.

What are normal gait speed values by age and sex?

For healthy adults walking at a normal pace, a meta-analysis of 41 articles and 23,111 people found mean speeds from 1.43 m/s in men aged 40 to 49 down to 0.94 m/s in women aged 80 to 99.⁠⁴ The included studies timed apparently healthy adults walking at a normal pace over 3 to 30 m, and the authors caution that the values may not serve as a standard of normal when gait is measured over short distances from the command "go" or with a turn.⁠⁴ The grand means below are converted from the published cm/s and rounded to two decimals.⁠^4,10

Read a patient’s speed against the row for their age and sex, and treat the gap as a description, not a diagnosis. A speed well below the mean for the age band says the person walks more slowly than healthy peers did in these studies; why they do is the clinical question the rest of the examination answers.

What are comfortable and fast gait speed norms for adults 20 to 79?

A single-study reference timed 230 healthy volunteers over a 7.62 m stretch of floor, at both comfortable and maximum speed.⁠¹² Mean comfortable speed ran from 1.27 m/s in women in their seventies to 1.46 m/s in men in their forties, and mean maximum speed from 1.75 m/s in women in their seventies to 2.53 m/s in men in their twenties; slower speeds went with greater age, shorter height and weaker lower-extremity muscles.⁠¹² The decade means below are converted from the published cm/s and rounded.⁠¹⁰

These are small samples per decade, healthy volunteers and one walkway length, so they suit a healthy-adult comparison better than a patient-group one. Neither table covers children: the meta-analysis strata begin at age 20.⁠⁴

What gait speed indicates fall risk in older adults?

For community-dwelling older adults, the World Guidelines for Falls Prevention and Management recommend gait speed for fall-risk stratification, with a cut-off below 0.8 m/s, chosen for its predictive ability and simplicity.⁠⁵ The guideline names the Timed Up and Go test as the alternative, at more than 15 seconds, while noting that its evidence for risk stratification is mixed.⁠⁵

A systematic review and meta-analysis built on posttest probability gives a second reading. Starting from a pretest probability of falling of 30%, a self-selected speed below 1.0 m/s raised the posttest probability to 39%, and a speed of 1.0 m/s or more lowered it to 20%; in two of the studies, walking at 0.6 m/s or slower raised it to 61%.⁠⁶ The review’s inclusion criteria required samples of at least 30 ambulatory community-living adults aged 65 or older and at least six months of fall data, so it describes that group, not inpatients or people with neurologic disease.⁠⁶

The survival figure comes from a pooled analysis of nine cohorts followed for 6 to 21 years, in which gait speed was associated with survival in every study.⁠¹³

What gait speed separates household and community ambulation?

The cut-points most often used, below 0.4 m/s for household ambulation, 0.4 to 0.8 m/s for limited community ambulation and above 0.8 m/s for community ambulation, come from people after stroke. The Shirley Ryan AbilityLab summary attributes them to the stroke population, citing Perry and colleagues’ 1995 classification of 147 stroke patients, in which adding walking velocity improved the prediction of functional walking category.⁠^10,14 Use them with stroke patients; for other diagnoses they are a rough guide at best.

What is the minimal clinically important difference in gait speed?

It depends on the patient group. In older adults with mobility disability, people after a subacute stroke and a community cohort, the best initial estimates were near 0.05 m/s for a small meaningful change and near 0.10 m/s for a substantial one.⁠⁷ In 283 people in the first 60 days after a first stroke, whose mean comfortable speed rose from 0.18 to 0.39 m/s, the minimal clinically important difference anchored to the modified Rankin Scale was 0.16 m/s.⁠⁸ Across studies of stroke, hip fracture, multiple sclerosis and mixed groups, a systematic review concluded that changes of 0.10 to 0.20 m/s may be important.⁠⁹

How large is the minimal detectable change for gait speed?

Large enough to matter when the change is small. The review of walking speed testing tabulates a 95% minimal detectable change of 0.14 m/s for self-selected speed in community-dwelling adults aged 60 and over, timed over 4 m, and of 0.18 m/s self-selected and 0.13 m/s maximal in chronic stroke, timed over 10 m.⁠³ The core-measures guideline reports a minimal detectable change of 0.18 m/s in chronic stroke and, in Parkinson disease, 0.18 m/s at comfortable speed and 0.25 m/s at fast speed.⁠¹

Read a re-test against both numbers from the group closest to the patient. A change smaller than the minimal detectable change may be measurement error, however meaningful its size would be if real; a change larger than both is the clearest evidence of improvement or decline.

How should gait speed be documented in the record?

Record enough that a different clinician could repeat the test exactly. The core-measures guideline asks that its measures be given under the same test conditions at admission and discharge and, when feasible, in between, and that results be discussed with the patient as part of planning care.⁠¹ The test summary adds two items that are easy to omit: the assistive device, which must stay the same from test to test, and the greatest level of assistance given.⁠¹⁰

• The protocol: walkway length, timed distance, static or dynamic start, straight path.⁠³
• The instruction: the exact words for each speed.⁠^1,3
• The trials: each time, and the averaged speed for comfortable and fast walking in m/s.⁠¹
• Device and help: the assistive device or orthosis and the greatest assistance given.⁠¹⁰
• The comparison: the norm or threshold used and the population it came from.⁠^4,5
• A test not done: a score of 0 when the patient cannot walk, with the reason.⁠¹

How standardized tests and measures enter the examination behind a PT evaluation code is set out in the PT evaluation codes guide. What Medicare asks to see when a re-test goes into a progress report or re-evaluation is covered in PT reassessment and documentation.

What mistakes make gait speed results hard to compare?

Most errors come from changing the protocol between tests or comparing with a reference that was collected another way.

• Switching distance. A 4-meter and a 10-meter result can differ by up to about 0.15 to 0.17 m/s, which is as large as many meaningful changes.⁠²
• Changing the start. A static start reads slower than a dynamic one.⁠³
• Timing a turn. A turn inside the timed distance adds slowing and acceleration that a straight path avoids.⁠³
• Rewording the instruction. Different instructions have produced significantly different speeds.⁠³
• Leading the patient. A clinician walking alongside or ahead can pace the patient; stay at least half a step behind.⁠¹⁰
• Changing the device. A different walker or cane between tests makes the scores incomparable.⁠¹⁰
• Borrowing a norm. The healthy-adult means came from normal-pace walks of 3 to 30 m and may not apply to a short walk from a standing start.⁠⁴
• Borrowing a threshold. The household-to-community cut-points come from people after stroke, and the 0.8 and 1.0 m/s fall thresholds from community-dwelling older adults.⁠^5,6,10

Where does gait speed fit in a falls assessment?

Gait speed is one of a small set of tests the major guidelines name together. The World Falls Guidelines list gait speed, the Timed Up and Go, the untimed Get Up and Go, the Berg Balance Scale, the chair stand test and the Short Physical Performance Battery as commonly used gait and balance tools.⁠⁵ The core-measures guideline for adults with neurologic conditions pairs the 10-meter walk test with the Berg Balance Scale, the Functional Gait Assessment, the Activities-specific Balance Confidence Scale, the 6-Minute Walk Test and the Five Times Sit-to-Stand.⁠¹ The CDC’s STEADI algorithm, for community-dwelling adults aged 65 and older, names the Timed Up and Go, the 30-Second Chair Stand and the 4-Stage Balance Test as common assessments of gait, strength and balance.⁠¹⁵

No single number settles fall risk; the systematic review that reported gait speed’s posttest probabilities found that no single test showed strong posttest probability on its own.⁠⁶ How to choose and combine the balance tests, with their cut-offs and change scores, is covered in choosing a balance outcome measure. For patients and families, the site’s guide to falls and balance in older adults explains the same assessment in plain terms.

Sources

1. Moore JL, Potter K, Blankshain K, Kaplan SL, O’Dwyer LC, Sullivan JE. A Core Set of Outcome Measures for Adults With Neurologic Conditions Undergoing Rehabilitation: A Clinical Practice Guideline (Journal of Neurologic Physical Therapy, 2018;42(3):174-220, doi:10.1097/NPT.0000000000000229, PMID 29901487, PMC6023606; developed with support from the APTA and the Academy of Neurologic Physical Therapy; full text read through PubMed Central). Checked October 30, 2026.
   Show the passageHide the passage

   “The core set includes the BBS, FGA, ABC, 10mWT, 6MWT, and 5TSTS, and the recommended patient goal assessment for adults who are undergoing neurologic physical therapy.”; “In cases when a patient cannot complete one or more core set OMs (eg, a patient who is unable to walk; thus, cannot complete the 10mWT or the 6MWT), a score of 0 should be documented.”; “The core set should be administered under the same test conditions at least 2 times, at admission and discharge, and when feasible between these periods”; “Clinicians should discuss the purpose of OMs, OM results, and how these results influence treatment options with patients undergoing neurologic physical therapy.”; “This protocol assesses the time to the nearest 100th of a second to walk the central 6 m of a 10-m walkway at the patient’s comfortable and fast walking speeds.”; “Two trials are administered at the comfortable speed, with the instruction “walk at your own comfortable speed and stop when you reach the far line,” followed by 2 trials at the fast speed, with the instruction “walk as fast as you can safely walk.””; “Use of an assistive device is permitted and should be documented.”; “Data to assist in interpretation and measuring changes were reported in chronic stable (stroke; MDC = 0.18 m/s)”; “PD (MDC = 0.18 m/s for comfortable and 0.25 m/s for fast speeds)”; “The BBS is a 14-item clinician-rated scale that assesses sitting and standing, static and dynamic balance.”; “The total score is calculated by summing the scores of the 14 items, with the maximum score of 56 and the minimum score of 0.”; “The patient’s ability to complete each item is rated on a 0- to 4-point scale, with 0 representing the inability to complete the task and 4 reflecting independent item completion.”; “The BBS has high clinical feasibility, as it requires minimal equipment, is free, and requires less than 20 minutes to administer.”; “A standardized testing form with administration instructions is available, and commonly available equipment (chair, stopwatch, ruler, and step) is used during testing.”; “It may be more difficult to achieve high reliability on individuals who score between 20 and 44.”; “Patients who have a high level of balance ability (eg, able to walk without an assistive device at a gait speed >1.0 m/s) may experience a ceiling effect on the BBS.”; “In participants with acute stroke, the SEM was 2.49 points”; “Clinics and organizations should establish administration consistency within and among clinicians prior to using the BBS, and this should be repeated annually.”; “In patients who perform well on the BBS, and score near the top of the scale, it may not be necessary to readminister the test.”; “The FGA is a 10-item clinician-rated test that assesses balance while walking.”; “To score the FGA, the items are summed and a maximum total score is 30.”; “A testing form with administration instructions is available, and commonly available equipment (obstacles, stopwatch, and steps) is used during testing.”; “In participants with mixed acute and chronic stable conditions, Lin et al calculated an MDC of 4.2.”; “In individuals with acute vestibular dysfunction, the ceiling effect was 25%.”; “If a patient demonstrates a high score (near 30 out of 30), or is likely to do so, the clinician may need to select a more challenging OM to assess changes over time.”; “Each item is rated on a 0% to 100% scale, and the total score is calculated by adding item scores and dividing by 16”; “requires minimal time (5-10 minutes)”; “Jonasson et al calculated an MDC of 11%.”; “Steffen and Seney reported a substantially higher MDC of 30% in a similar sample.”; “was considered for inclusion in the core set of OMs; however, it did not meet the established criteria.” The last quotation is the guideline’s sentence on the Mini-BESTest.
2. Peters DM, Fritz SL, Krotish DE. Assessing the reliability and validity of a shorter walk test compared with the 10-Meter Walk Test for measurements of gait speed in healthy, older adults (Journal of Geriatric Physical Therapy, 2013;36(1):24-30, doi:10.1519/JPT.0b013e318248e20d, PMID 22415358; abstract read through the Europe PMC record). Checked October 30, 2026.
   Show the passageHide the passage

   “Forty-three healthy, older adults (mean age = 84.3 ± 6.9 years) performed 3 consecutive walking trials on the 4- and 10-Meter Walk Tests at their self-selected walking speed.”; “with similar results for stopwatch and automatic timer assessments (ICC values of 0.99-1.00).”; “the Bland-Altman analysis revealed a discrepancy of ±0.15 to ±0.17 m/s between measurement methods.”; “the 4-Meter Walk Test does not exhibit a high enough degree of concurrent validity with the 10-Meter Walk Test to be used interchangeably for gait speed assessments in healthy, older adults.”
3. Middleton A, Fritz SL, Lusardi M. Walking speed: the functional vital sign (Journal of Aging and Physical Activity, 2015;23(2):314-322, doi:10.1123/japa.2013-0236, PMID 24812254, PMC4254896; full text read through PubMed Central). Checked October 30, 2026.
   Show the passageHide the passage

   “the original article proposed WS be considered the “sixth vital sign””; “Although a standardized protocol has not been adopted, there is evidence available to help guide WS test selection.”; “Therefore, WSs calculated via the 4 meter walk test can be compared across testing sessions, but should not be compared to 10 meter walk test results for determining changes over time.”; “WSs calculated without an acceleration phase (static start) are slower than WSs calculated via dynamic start protocols”; “Clinicians should consider administering tests with timed distances of 5 to 10 meters”; “and acceleration phases of approximately 2.5 meters for self-selected speeds”; “and 3.25 meters for maximal WSs”; “A straight path should be used in order to capture steady state WS rather than including a turn”; “Hand held stopwatches can be used for timing”; “Regardless of approach decided upon, instructions should be consistent across testing sessions as differing methods have been shown to produce significantly different results”; “While an individual’s self-selected or usual WS is indicative of current functional status”; “maximal WS provides information regarding an individual’s capabilities in the community”; “Therefore, maximal WS should be assessed in addition to self-selected WS as part of a comprehensive evaluation”; “For example, in the United States WSs of 1.32 m/s or greater are required to ensure safe street crossing”; “Regardless of protocol chosen, the important take home message is that consistency across testing sessions must be maintained in order for accurate conclusions to be drawn.” Its Table 2, summarized here, not quoted: MDC95 for self-selected walking speed of 0.14 m/s in community-dwelling older adults aged 60 and over (4 m timed, 2 m acceleration), and 0.18 m/s self-selected and 0.13 m/s maximal in chronic stroke (10 m timed, 2 m acceleration).
4. Bohannon RW, Williams Andrews A. Normal walking speed: a descriptive meta-analysis (Physiotherapy, 2011;97(3):182-189, doi:10.1016/j.physio.2010.12.004, PMID 21820535; abstract read through the Europe PMC record). Checked October 30, 2026.
   Show the passageHide the passage

   “Inclusion required that the gait speed of apparently healthy adults was documented as they walked at a normal pace over a course of 3 to 30 m.”; “Combined, they provided data from 23111 subjects.”; “The gait speed was homogeneous within strata and ranged from a mean of 143.4 cm/second for men aged 40 to 49 years to a mean of 94.3 cm/second for women aged 80 to 99 years.”; “The data presented herein may not be useful as a standard of normal if gait is measured over short distances from the command ’go’ or if a turn is involved.”
5. Montero-Odasso M, van der Velde N, Martin FC, Petrovic M, Tan MP, Ryg J, et al.; Task Force on Global Guidelines for Falls in Older Adults. World guidelines for falls prevention and management for older adults: a global initiative (Age and Ageing, 2022;51(9):afac205, doi:10.1093/ageing/afac205, PMID 36178003, PMC9523684; full text read through PubMed Central). Checked October 30, 2026.
   Show the passageHide the passage

   “Opportunistic case finding for falls risk is recommended for community-dwelling older adults.”; “For risk stratification, we recommend use of gait speed, with a cut-off value of <0.8 m/s on the basis of its predictive ability and simplicity”; “Alternatively, the Timed Up and Go (TUG) test can be used, with a cut-off value of >15 seconds, although evidence for fall risk stratification is mixed.”; “Assessment tools that are useful and commonly used in the assessment of gait and balance include: gait speed, The Timed Up and Go (TUG) test, the untimed Get Up And Go test, Berg Balance Scale, the Chair Stand test (CST) and Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB).”
6. Lusardi MM, Fritz S, Middleton A, Allison L, Wingood M, Phillips E, et al. Determining Risk of Falls in Community Dwelling Older Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Using Posttest Probability (Journal of Geriatric Physical Therapy, 2017;40(1):1-36, doi:10.1519/JPT.0000000000000099, PMID 27537070, PMC5158094; full text read through PubMed Central). Checked October 30, 2026.
   Show the passageHide the passage

   “have a sample size of at least 30 ambulatory community-living older adults (≥65 years), and track falls occurrence for a minimum of 6 months.”; “No single test/measure demonstrated strong PoTP values.”; “Berg Balance Scale score (≤50 points), Timed Up and Go times (≥12 seconds), and 5 times sit-to-stand times (≥12) seconds are currently the most evidence-supported functional measures to determine individual risk of future falls.”; “For most, Sp values were much higher than Sn values, indicating greater usefulness for ruling in risk of future falls than ruling them out.”; “A cut score of 50 points provides a PoTP of 59% for those who score 50 or less (a positive test) and from a PoTP of 23% for those who score 51 or more points (a negative test).”; “The single-task Timed Up and Go (TUG) test 12 seconds or more had a PoTP of 47% (positive test) and a PoTP of 25% if TUG time less than 12 seconds.”; “being unable to maintain the SLS potions for at least 6.5 seconds (positive test) yielded a PoTP of 45%.”; “Exceeding this time (negative test) yields a PoTP of 28%.”; “Self-selected walking speed (SSWS) less than 1.0 m/s (positive test) resulted in a PoTP of 39%. An SSWS 1.0 m/s or more (negative test) resulted in a PoTP of 20%.”; “Two of these, (combined sample size 509 participants) also considered an SSWS cut score of 0.6 m/s, reporting a PoTP of 61% for those walking 0.6 m/s or less”; “Summary of Clinically Useful Indicators of Risk of 1 or More Future Falls Based on a PrTP of 30%”.
7. Perera S, Mody SH, Woodman RC, Studenski SA. Meaningful change and responsiveness in common physical performance measures in older adults (Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 2006;54(5):743-749, doi:10.1111/j.1532-5415.2006.00701.x, PMID 16696738; abstract read through the Europe PMC record). Checked October 30, 2026.
   Show the passageHide the passage

   “Older adults with mobility disabilities in a strength training trial (n=100), subacute stroke survivors in an intervention trial (n=100), and a prospective cohort of community-dwelling older people (n=492).”; “Best initial estimates of small meaningful change are near 0.05 m/s for gait speed, 0.5 points for SPPB, and 20 m for 6MWD and of substantial change are near 0.10 m/s for gait speed, 1.0 point for SPPB, and 50 m for 6MWD.”
8. Tilson JK, Sullivan KJ, Cen SY, Rose DK, Koradia CH, Azen SP, et al. Meaningful gait speed improvement during the first 60 days poststroke: minimal clinically important difference (Physical Therapy, 2010;90(2):196-208, doi:10.2522/ptj.20090079, PMID 20022995, PMC2816032; abstract read through the Europe PMC record). Checked October 30, 2026.
   Show the passageHide the passage

   “The participants in this study were 283 people with first-time stroke prospectively enrolled in the ongoing Locomotor Experience Applied Post Stroke (LEAPS) multi-site randomized clinical trial.”; “Mean (SD) CGS was 0.18 (0.16) m/s at 20 days and 0.39 (0.22) m/s at 60 days poststroke.”; “We estimate that the MCID for gait speed among patients with subacute stroke and severe gait speed impairments is 0.16 m/s.”
9. Bohannon RW, Glenney SS. Minimal clinically important difference for change in comfortable gait speed of adults with pathology: a systematic review (Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 2014;20(4):295-300, doi:10.1111/jep.12158, PMID 24798823; abstract read through the Europe PMC record). Checked October 30, 2026.
   Show the passageHide the passage

   “The populations studied included stroke (n = 3), hip fracture (n = 2), multiple sclerosis (n = 1) and mixed (n = 1).”; “All MCIDs for which the area under the ROC curve exceeded 0.70 were between 0.10 and 0.17 m s(-1) .”; “Changes in gait speed of 0.10 to 0.20 m s(-1) may be important across multiple patient groups.”
10. Shirley Ryan AbilityLab, Rehabilitation Measures Database. 10 Meter Walk Test (instrument summary, last updated January 22, 2014). Checked October 30, 2026.
    Show the passageHide the passage

    “Two trials are administered at the patient’s comfortable walking speed, followed by 2 trials at his/her fast walking speed, per the below instructions. The 2 trials, for each speed, are averaged and the 2 gait speeds are documented in meters/second.”; “Assistive devices may be used but must be documented from test to test.”; “The level of assistance documented, however, should reflect the greatest amount of assistance provided during the test.”; “Test administrator should walk at least a half step behind the patient so as not to influence the patient’s speed”; “No significant difference noted when comparing static and dynamic starts in chronic incomplete SCI (Scivoletto et al, 2011)”; “Healthy Adults (Bohannon RW & Andrews AW, 2011; n=23,111)”; “Healthy adults: (Bohannon 1997; n=230 healthy volunteers)”; “(Tilson, 2010; n = 283; mean age = 63.5 (12.5) years; assessed at approximately day 20 and day 60 post stroke, 14m walk with middle 10 m timed with or without assistance, Acute Stroke) MCID = 0.16 m/s”; “< 0.4 m/s were more likely to be household ambulators 0.4 - 0.8 m/s limited community ambulators > 0.8 m/s were community ambulators”; “Ambulation ability has been correlated with gait speed (Perry et al, 1995)”. Its normative tables, summarized here, not quoted: from Bohannon and Andrews 2011, grand mean gait speed in cm/second, men 20-29 135.8, 30-39 143.3, 40-49 143.4, 50-59 143.3, 60-69 133.9, 70-79 126.2, 80-99 96.8; women 20-29 134.1, 30-39 133.7, 40-49 139.0, 50-59 131.3, 60-69 124.1, 70-79 113.2, 80-99 94.3; from Bohannon 1997, mean comfortable and maximum gait speed in cm/second, men 20s 139.3 and 253.3, 30s 145.8 and 245.6, 40s 146.2 and 246.2, 50s 139.3 and 206.9, 60s 135.9 and 193.3, 70s 133 and 207.9; women 20s 140.7 and 246.7, 30s 141.5 and 234.2, 40s 139.1 and 212.3, 50s 139.5 and 201, 60s 129.6 and 177.4, 70s 127.2 and 174.9.
11. Cruz-Jentoft AJ, Bahat G, Bauer J, Boirie Y, Bruyère O, Cederholm T, et al. Sarcopenia: revised European consensus on definition and diagnosis (Age and Ageing, 2019;48(1):16-31, doi:10.1093/ageing/afy169, PMID 30312372, PMC6322506; full text read through PubMed Central). Checked October 30, 2026.
    Show the passageHide the passage

    “A commonly used gait speed test is called the 4-m usual walking speed test, with speed measured either manually with a stopwatch or instrumentally with an electronic device to measure gait timing”; “For simplicity, a single cut-off speed ≤0.8 m/s is advised by EWGSOP2 as an indicator of severe sarcopenia.”
12. Bohannon RW. Comfortable and maximum walking speed of adults aged 20-79 years: reference values and determinants (Age and Ageing, 1997;26(1):15-19, doi:10.1093/ageing/26.1.15, PMID 9143432; abstract read through the Europe PMC record). Checked October 30, 2026.
    Show the passageHide the passage

    “subjects were 230 healthy volunteers. Gait was timed over a 7.62 m expanse of floor.”; “mean comfortable gait speed ranged from 127.2 cm/s for women in their seventies to 146.2 cm/s for men in their forties. Mean maximum gait speed ranged from 174.9 cm/s for women in their seventies to 253.3 cm/s for men in their twenties.”; “Gait speed can be expected to be reduced in individuals of greater age and of lesser height and lower extremity muscle strength.”
13. Studenski S, Perera S, Patel K, Rosano C, Faulkner K, Inzitari M, et al. Gait speed and survival in older adults (JAMA, 2011;305(1):50-58, doi:10.1001/jama.2010.1923, PMID 21205966, PMC3080184; abstract read through the Europe PMC record). Checked October 30, 2026.
    Show the passageHide the passage

    “Pooled analysis of 9 cohort studies (collected between 1986 and 2000), using individual data from 34,485 community-dwelling older adults aged 65 years or older with baseline gait speed data, followed up for 6 to 21 years.”; “Gait speed was associated with survival in all studies (pooled hazard ratio per 0.1 m/s, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.87-0.90;”.
14. Perry J, Garrett M, Gronley JK, Mulroy SJ. Classification of walking handicap in the stroke population (Stroke, 1995;26(6):982-989, doi:10.1161/01.STR.26.6.982, PMID 7762050; abstract read through the Europe PMC record). “the relationships between impairment, disability, and handicap were assessed with clinical measures in 147 stroke patients.”; “The addition of velocity improved the functional prediction.” Checked October 30, 2026.
15. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, STEADI. Algorithm for Fall Risk Screening, Assessment, and Intervention (2019). Checked October 30, 2026.
    Show the passageHide the passage

    “STEADI Algorithm for Fall Risk Screening, Assessment, and Intervention among Community-Dwelling Adults 65 years and older”; “SCREEN for fall risk yearly, or any time patient presents with an acute fall.”; “Three key questions for patients [at risk if YES to any question] - Feels unsteady when standing or walking? - Worries about falling? - Has fallen in past year?”; “Evaluate gait, strength, & balance”; “Timed Up & Go 30-Second Chair Stand 4-Stage Balance Test”. The algorithm lists the three tests as its common assessments of gait, strength and balance.

Medical disclaimer. This page is for general educational purposes and does not constitute medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. It is clinical reference information for licensed clinicians; it does not replace clinical judgment, the patient’s own presentation, or the licensing law of the clinician’s state. Each published threshold applies to the population that produced it.