6 MINUTE WALK TEST (6MWT)

Orange text indicates that the reference was also critically appraised and cited in the publication “A Core
Set of Outcome Measures for Adults with Neurologic Conditions Undergoing Rehabilitation: A Clinical
Practice Guideline”. Journal of Neurologic Physical Therapy 2018; 42(2): 174-220.

Instructions:1,2
• Please refer to the protocol for standardized administration of the 6MWT. This can be
found at: http://neuropt.org/practice-resources/anpt-clinical-practice-guidelines/core-
outcome-measures-cpg
• This protocol includes standardized instructions, timing and examples of encouragement
to provide during the test.

Scoring:1,2
• Distance (in meters) covered in six minutes is calculated by multiplying the number of total
laps by 12 meters, then adding the distance of the partial lap completed at the time the
test ended.

Considerations:3-5
• Document any assistive device/bracing used.
• Document the amount of assistance using the 7-point ordinal scale described in the
standardized administration protocol.
• If a patient requires total assistance, is unable to ambulate, or requires assistance for limb
swing or forward propulsion, a score of 0 should be documented.
• If your patient needs to sit and rest, the test stops and this distance is recorded as the
6MWT score.

What Does my Patient’s Score Mean?*

• Normative values may be used in conjunction with a complete evaluation to interpret the
meaning of a patient’s 6MWT.
• Community-dwelling Elderly (n=96, non-smoking, independent function, no dizziness, no
assistive device use).6

AGE MALE FEMALE

60-69 yrs 572 meters 538 meters
70-79 yrs 527 meters 471 meters
80-89 yrs 417 meters 392 meters
• Or, calculate the normal distance (in meters) for their gender, age, height, and weight
using these equations (n=290, healthy adults 40-80yo)7:
MEN: distance = (7.57 × height cm) - (5.02 × age) - (1.76 × weight kg) - 309
WOMEN: distance = (2.11 × height cm) - (2.29 × weight kg) - (5.78 × age) + 667
*Healthy age- and gender-matched normative values and reference equations were calculated using
longer course configurations than the protocol recommendation. Exercise caution when comparing
walking distances achieved on the 12 m course outlined in the ANPT protocol to these normative values.

What Constitutes a Change in Walking Distance?*

Change can be determined using values of Minimal Detectable Change (MDC) and Minimal
Clinically Important Difference (MCID). MDC is the minimal change required to ensure the
change is not the result of measurement error. MCID is the minimal change required for the
patient to also feel an improvement in the construct being measured.
†Denotes that the MDC was calculated from the Standard Error of the Measure.

• Alzheimer’s Disease: • Geriatrics:

¡ MDC: 33.5 meters(m) 8 ¡ MDC†: 58.2 m9
 • Huntington’s Disease (HD): ¡MCID (ASIA scale C/D, chronic SCI): 0.1
MDC (premanifest HD): 39.2 m1
¡ m/s change in gait speed using distance
¡ MDC (manifest HD): 86.6 m1
covered on 6MWT13
¡ MDC (early stage HD): 56.6 m1
• Stroke:
¡ MDC (middle stage HD): 126.14 m1
¡ MDC (chronic, >12 months post-stroke,
¡ MDC (late stage HD): 70.7 m1
BBS= 46-55): 34.4m14
¡ MDC (chronic, 6-48 months post-stroke,
• Multiple Sclerosis (mean EDSS= 3.5)
ability to ambulate 300m): 36.6 m15
¡ MDC: 88m or 20% change10
¡ MDC† (subacute, 30-150 days post-
• Parkinson Disease (Hoehn & Yahr 1-4, stroke): 61.0 m6
median 2): ¡ MCID (chronic, >6 months post-stroke):
MDC: 82 m11
¡
34.4 m16
• Spinal Cord Injury: ¡ MCID (2-6 months post-stroke, ability to
¡ MDC (Incomplete injuries, < 12 months walk 3 m with < max assist):
post-injury): 45.8 m12 § when initial gait speed <0.40 m/s = 44 m17

§ when initial gait speed ≥0.40 m/s = 71 m17

*All change values were calculated from 6 minute walk protocols that varied in course walkway length and configuration.
Exercise caution when comparing walking distances achieved on the 12 m course outlined in the ANPT protocol

REFERENCES
1. Quinn L, Khalil H, Dawes H, et al. Reliability and minimal detectable change of physical performance measures
in individuals with pre-manifest and manifest Huntington disease. Phys Ther. 2013;93(7):942-956. doi:10.2522/
ptj.20130032
2. ATS statement: guidelines for the six-minute walk test. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2002;166(1):111-117.
3. Tyson S, Connell L, The psychometric properties and clinical utility of measures of walking and mobility in
neurological conditions: a systematic review. Clin Rehabil. 2009. 23(11): p. 1018-33.
4. Watson MJ. Refining the ten-metre walking test for use with neurologically impaired
people. Physiother. 2002;88(7):386-397.3. Stephens JM, Goldie PA. Walking speed on parquetry and carpet
after stroke: effect of surface and retest reliability. Clin Rehabil. 1999;13(2):171-181.
5. Jackson AB, Carnel CT, Ditunno JF, et al. Outcome measures for gait and ambulation in the spinal cord injury
population. J Spinal Cord Med. 2008;31(5):487-499.
6. Steffen TM, Hacker TA, Mollinger L. Age- and gender-related test performance in community-dwelling
elderly people: Six-Minute Walk Test, Berg Balance Scale, Timed Up & Go Test, and gait speeds. Phys Ther.
2002;82(2):128-137.
7. Enright PL, Sherrill DL. Reference equations for the six-minute walk in healthy adults. Am J Respir Crit Care
Med. 1998. doi:10.1164/ ajrccm.161.4.16147a
8. Ries JD, Echternach JL, Nof L, Gagnon Blodgett M. Test-retest reliability and minimal detectable change
scores for the timed “up & go” test, the six-minute walk test, and gait speed in people with Alzheimer disease.
Phys Ther. 2009. doi:10.2522/ptj.20080258
9. Perera S, Mody SH, Woodman RC, Studenski SA. Meaningful change and responsiveness in common physical
performance measures in older adults. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2006. doi:10.1111/ j.1532-5415.2006.00701.x
10. Learmonth YC, Dlugonski DD, Pilutti LA, Sandroff BM, Motl RW. The reliability, precision and clinically mean-
ingful change of walking assess- ments in multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler J. 2013. doi:10.1177/1352458513483890
11. Steffen T, Seney M. Test-retest reliability and minimal detectable change on balance and ambulation tests, the
36-Item Short-Form Health Survey, and the Unified Parkinson Disease Rating Scale in
people with Parkinsonism. Phys Ther. 2008. doi:10.2522/ptj.20070214
12. Lam T, Noonan VK, Eng JJ. A systematic review of functional ambulation outcome measures in spinal cord
injury. Spinal Cord. 2008. doi:10.1038/sj.sc.3102134
13. Forrest GF, Hutchinson K, Lorenz DJ, et al. Are the 10 meter and 6 minute walk tests redundant in
patients with spinal cord injury? PLoS One. 2014. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0094108
14. Eng JJ, Dawson AS, Chu KS. Submaximal Exercise in Persons with Stroke: Test-Retest Reliability and
Concurrent Validity with Maximal Oxygen Consumption. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2004. doi:10.1016/S0003-
9993(03)00436-2
15. Flansbjer UB, Holmbäck AM, Downham D, Patten C, Lexell J. Reliability of gait performance tests in men and
women with hemiparesis after stroke. J Rehabil Med. 2005. doi:10.1080/16501970410017215
16. Tang A, Eng JJ, Rand D. Relationship between perceived and measured changes in walking after stroke. J
Neurol Phys Ther. 2012. doi:10.1097/ NPT.0b013e318262dbd0
17. Fulk GD, He Y. Minimally clinically important difference of the 6-Minute Walk Test in people with stroke. J
Neurol Phys Ther. 2018; 42: 235-240.

Referenced information was reviewed by the Core Measures KT Taskforce in 2019 at www.neuropt.org. Some values are
condition specific and caution should be used in generalizing them to all patients.