Functional Reach

Name of Assessment Tool: FUNCTIONAL REACH (FR)

Type of test:
Time to administer: This test takes a few minutes and is very reliable
Clinical Comments: There are some recent discussions whether this test examines limits of stability. This
test may predict falling in some community dwelling populations better than patient populations.

Purpose/population for which tool was developed: Developed as a clinically feasible measure of the margin of
stability (in balance assessment) in adults. The forward reach was chosen as the test task because it is a common
functional movement and because it is similar to the leaning movements used to measure the excursion of the center
1
of pressure on a force platform (an accepted dynamic balance measure). A recent article challenges that FR and
2
limits of stability should not be used interchangeably.

When appropriate to use: 1) to document change over time in patients with balance problems, 2) to assess
likelihood that patient will fall , 3) to complete a balance assessment.

Scaling: Results in the literature have been reported in inches and centimeters. The functional reach score equals
the difference (in inches or centimeters) between the ‘end’ and the ‘start’ hand positions. (2.54 cm = 1 inch)

Equipment needed:
Yardstick and/or large paper, tape. Mackenzie (1999) suggests a modified form of the measuring device
using a self-recording tape measure connected to a handle. 3

Directions: Subject must be able to stand 1 minute without support in order to have this test administered

Set-up/Instructions:
Tape a level yardstick to wall at patient’s acromion height. Patient stands perpendicular to yardstick, with arm flexed
to 90 degrees and hand in a fist. Record position of 3 rd metacarpal head on the yardstick. Instruct pt. to reach as far
forward as possible without losing his/her balance,, lifting his heels, or taking a step. Record position of 3 rd
metacarpal head on the yardstick. [Note: pt. needs to keep hand at level of yardstick when reaching forward but
cannot be allowed to touch the wall. Beyond these restrictions, DO NOT control the method of reach]. A large
piece of paper could be taped to the wall for marking the start & end positions. Allow 2 practice trials then average
the next 3 trials to obtain the score for the session. A paper by Billek-Sawhney (2005) found the reliability between
2 trials to be r=.975 meaning one can use 2 trials. 4

Arnadottir and Mercer (2000) 5 found 35 women age 65 to 93 performed better on FR when they were barefoot or
wore walking shoes than when subjects wore dress shoes regardless of whether they performed the test on carpet or
linoleum. There was no difference between barefoot walking shoe conditions on either floor surface.
The foot placement is the typical stance of the client. No studies were found that compared foot placement for FR.
An article by Mcllroy and Maki (1996) 6 suggests the wide range of preferred foot placements highlights the need
for standardization during foot placement. Functional reach increases significantly with additional sensory
information from the fifth metacarpal surface of the dominant hand 7 and if a target is given. 8

Contraindications: Blurred vision has less of an effect on FR than the Tinetti or TUG. 9

Learning Effect: Clients who have a target reach further than those who do not. 8

Reliability:
Reference N= Sample description Reliability statistic
Intrarater reliability: same rater within one session (or one day)
Mecagni, 200010 8 2 trials ICC =.96
Franchignoni, 199811 45 healthy women 55-71 ICC(2,1) = .97
Rockwood, 2000 12 1161 3 trials: persons with cognitive impairment ICC=.92

Tests and Measures: Adult; 2012 FR Page 1

Do not copy without permission of Teresa Steffen
 Functional Reach

Interrater Reliability
Duncan, 1990 1 17 normal subjects, age 20-87 ICC = .98
Franchignoni, 1998 11 45 healthy women 55-71 ICC(2,1) = .86
Light, 1995 13 30 5 trials each for 2 subjects, in community- r = .98
dwelling elderly
Wolf, 1999 14 56 For 4 raters observing the same test, ICC = .99
Kileff, 2005 15 8 (2 raters) people with MS Friedman Test Mean difference;
.5 on FR left arm and .25 FR
right arm
Giorgetti, 1998 16 21 Mean age = 73, without disability ICC = .73
21 (2 examiners) Mean age = 75, with ICC = .79
disability
Holbein-Jenny, 2005 17 26 Community-dwelling ICC (1,1)
Forward = .98; Backward = .96
Right = .94; Left = .91
Schenkman, 1997 18 15 patients with early to middle stages of PD. ICC = .90
Frzovic, 2000 19 28 (N=14) people with MS ; (N=14) Control ICC=.89

Test-retest reliability
Time Btw. Mean SD Test-retest
Reference Population MDC (cm)
Testing (cm) (cm) Reliability
1
Duncan, 1990 Community- 1 week Forward ICC= Unable to calculate-
dwelling elderly 0.92 no X or SD given
(n=128)
Franchignoni, (n=45) Females, 24 hrs. Forward ICC= Unable to
1998 11 ages 55-75 0.87 calculate—no X or
SD given
Hageman, 1995 20 Community- 1 week Forward ICC= Unable to
dwelling healthy 0.92 calculate—no X or
adults (n=12) SD given
Holbein-Jenny, Elderly (n=21), 1-2 weeks 14.22, 6.54, Forward ICC= Forward= 10.54
2005 17 ages 74-92 7.37, 5.59, 0.75 Backward= 8.33
8.38, 6.35, Backward ICC= Right= 10.26
9.40 7.87 0.71 Left= 8.99
Right ICC= 0.66
Left ICC= 0.83
Lim, 2005 21 Idiopathic 1 week Forward ICC= SDD= 11.5
Parkinson’s 0.74
Disease (n=26)
Marsh, 2005 22 Community- 2 weeks Lateral ICC= unable to calculate-
dwelling elderly 0.86 X and SD not given
(n=44) for subset
Schenkman, 1998 Parkinson’s 1 day 32.3 Forward ICC= Unable to calculate-
23
Disease, (n=14) 0.84 no SD given for
74.5 yrs (mean initial measurement
age)
Sherrington, 2005 Hopital 1 day 14 9.6 Forward ICC= 8.83
24
inpatients and 0.89
community
dwelling elderly,
fallers and
previous fallers
(n=30)

Tests and Measures: Adult; 2012 FR Page 2

Do not copy without permission of Teresa Steffen
 Functional Reach
Based on a review of 9 articles, test-retest reliability on functional reach has been shown to vary from low to high,
with intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) ranging from .42-.93. The time between testing varying greatly from 1
day to 1 month.1, 11, 17, 18, 20, 21, 24-26 Only 3 studies examining test-retest reliability had a sample size over 30.1, 11, 22
Nine studies examined forward reach1, 11, 17, 18, 20, 21, 24-26 and 1 examined backward reach.17 3 studies reported test-
retest reliability in subjects with PD.18, 21, 25 One study of 26 subjects with idiopathic PD reported an ICC of .74 for
forward reach with a testing interval of one week,21 while a second study of 14 subjects with PD reported an ICC of
.84 for forward reach with a testing interval of one day.18 Another study of 10 elderly and 20 subjects with PD
subjects, using a testing interval of one week, reported an ICC2,1 of .62 in the elderly, .93 for subjects with PD who
had a history of falls, and .42 for subjects with PD with no history of falls. 25
Of the current studies examining test-retest reliability, Four provided data to calculate MDC95, which
ranged from 4 to 11 cm.17, 24-26 Two studies reporting test-retest reliability of forward functional reach, one week
apart, in 20 people with PD found MDC95 of 4 cm of people who had fallen and 8 cm for people who had not fallen
and 12 cm for 26 people with a diagnosis of idiopathic PD.21, 25
Validity:
Construct / Concurrent Validity: It is difficult to always differentiate between these 2 types of validity. Evaluating
this property requires a “gold standard” measure with which to compare the tests results. Such a “gold standard” is
often not available.
Population N= Support for Validity
Concurrent validity:
Adult volunteers 128 FR correlated with: force plate measures of the excursion of the center of pressure
(ages 21-87) (.71). 1
Community- 45 FR correlated with: gait speed (.71); the hierarchical mobility skills protocol (.65);
dwelling elderly IADL scores (.66). (n=45) 26 These authors concluded that FR correlates with
physical frailty more than with age.
34 FR correlated with: dorsiflexion ROM with knee extended (.47) and plantarflexion
(.16). Women, age 64-87 10
45 Change in FR after rehabilitation correlated with: change in the Mobility Skills
Score (.37); change in FIM (.38); change in walking speed (r = -.20). 27
50 FR was not significantly associated with strength gains in frail elderly (mean age
78) who underwent home strengthening exercise 3 times/week for 10 weeks 28
Older adults with c/o 30 Clinical (yardstick) recording of FR correlated with: videotape analysis of FR (.98)
disequilibrium (n=15 with c/o disequilibrium; 15 without c/o disequilibrium. 13
28 FR correlated with: single leg stance (.65) (in people with peripheral vestibular
disease). 29
s/p LE amputation 30 FR correlated with: PPT (.66) (in people with diabetes and transmetatarsal
amputation). 30
Rural, aged Japanese 383 No significant association between anterior FR or lateral FR and falls. 31; mean age
= 79
Osteoarthritis 130 No significant association between knee pain and FR 31; mean age = 80
Osteoporosis or 16 Spearman rank correlation coefficients of kyphosis index and FR (-.60). 32
Osteopenia
Geriatric 52 The FR did not discriminate between levels of ambulation by ambulatory aid or on
Rehabilitation the FIM 33
Balance Deficits 20 FR and TUG (.56), BBS and FR no significance. 34
Osteoarthritis of the 50 Community-dwelling women (mean age = 69) -.52 FR and age, -.35 FR and self
knee report function, .48 FR and self efficacy. 35
Parkinson’s Disease 35 FR correlated .44 - .51 with balance master items 36
Predictive Validity:
Population N= Support for Validity
LTC residents 303 Thapa (1996) found FR did not predict falls. 37
Dx/o Parkinson’s 37 12 of 37 subjects (mean age = 68) had a FR of less than 11.8 inches; these 12
Disease subjects were referred to physical therapy as they were deemed at risk for falling.
Four of those twelve subjects did subsequently fall. The falls were generally
related to noncompliance with the physical therapy recommendations and use of an
assistive device. 38

Tests and Measures: Adult; 2012 FR Page 3

Do not copy without permission of Teresa Steffen
 Functional Reach

Fallers 217 Duncan, 1992 39 found FR to have predictive validity in identifying recurrent
fallers (i.e., 2 or more falls during the 6-month follow up period); n= 217
community-dwelling male veterans (age 70-104). Logistic regression shows that:
If FR = 0 inches: 8 times more likely to have 2 falls in 6 mos than
person with FR=10”
If FR < or equal to 6 inches: 4 times more likely to have 2 falls
If FR > 6 inches but < 10 inches: 2 times more likely to have 2 falls
16 Cho & Kamen (1998) 40 found no group differences on FR for 8 healthy older
subjects compared to 8 age-matched idiopathic fallers.
705 Having a long functional reach ( 35 cm) and being able to perform a full tandem
stand with eyes closed for at least 10 seconds were associated with decreased rates
of falls. 41
67 Any improvement in FR during PT Rx in a geriatric day hospital can predict
subsequent decrease in falling 42
Older adults 436 FR did not predict disability in a large cohort study of women. 43
705 FR was positively associated with quadriceps and grip strength; 44 as well as BMI
in studies of 705 elderly Japanese women in Hawaii. 41
Community- 402 FR was not associated with falls 45 which averaged 24 cm
dwelling
Fallers 15 Mean age = 73 46 No difference on FR between 2 groups
Non-Fallers 10 Mean age = 75 46
Community- 99 Duncan (1990 ) found that only 3/99 male veterans who could ascend/descend
dwelling elderly stairs foot over foot had FR of 6 inches or less. 1

45 No subject with FR less than 7 inches: was able to complete more than 6/11 items
on the mobility skills protocol; could balance for greater than 1 second during
SLS; was able to tandem walk; or was able to leave his/her neighborhood without
help. 26
Women community- 99 Mean age = 71 47 No significant differences
dwelling Non-fallers (N=65): FFR= 30(1) Right FR = between groups
20(1)
Fallers (N=35): FFR= 29(1) Right FR= 20(1)
Frequent Fallers (N=16): FFR= 29(2) Right FR=
19(1)
Recurrent Fallers (N=19): FFR= 29(2) Right FR=
20(1)
Community- 15 Steady patients No statistical differences
dwelling 23 Unsteady patients 48 between 2 groups
Sensitivity/specificity:
Population N= Cutoff Score and Description Results
Fallers 54 Cutoff of 25 cm: (identifying multiple fallers vs Sensitivity of 63%
nonmultiple fallers Specificity of 59%
(N=54; outpatients over the age of 65 attending
community rehab) 49
Dx/o Parkinson’s 58 Cutoff of 25.4 cm: (identifying fallers) Sensitivity of 30%
50
Disease Specificity of 92%.
Day Hospital 30 Using cut off of 18.5 to predict fall; Mean score Sensitivity of 75%
fallers (N=18) 15.5(6.5); non-fallers (N=12) Specificity of 67%
19.4(4.2); Mean age = 80-81 51 OR 5.28, p < .08
Community 203 Using a cutoff of 30 for able vs. not able 52 Sensitivity 86%
dwelling elderly Specificity 38%
Using a cutoff of 24 for decreased disability vs. Sensitivity 81%
disabled 52 Specificity 52%
NOTE: Clinicians need to choose a cut-off score based on the specific purpose for which the test is used

Tests and Measures: Adult; 2012 FR Page 4

Do not copy without permission of Teresa Steffen
 Functional Reach

Responsiveness/sensitivity to change
Population N Responsive
Reference and Intervention Data Supporting Responsiveness
Descriptor = Yes/No
53
Community- 42 Okumiya, 1996 Yes Exercisers improved significantly
dwelling Healthy Japanese elderly; mean age greater than controls
elderly = 79
Experimental group:
Exercisers
Control group:
Non-exercising
Length / frequency of intervention
6 months; 54
1 hour, 2x/week
Community- 12 Rogers, 2001 Yes Significant Improvement from 33
dwelling Balance intervention program; mean cm initial to 40 cm
elderly age=70
Length / frequency of intervention
10 weeks
20 Barrett, 2002 55 Yes Progressive
Healthy elderly persons Initial: 34 (5) cm
Progressive resistive exercise Final: 38 (3) cm; p < .003
program Flexibility Initial 33(5) to 33(6); NS
Flexibility training; 2x per wk; 10 Significant change between groups
weeks
Community- 14 Shigematsu, 2001 56 Yes Initial: 23 (5) to 27(3); p<.05
dwelling Exercise program Control 26(8) to 25(7); NS
elderly Length / frequency of intervention
(Continued) 60 min, 3x/week for 3 months
19 Dennis, 1999 57 Yes Initial: 7 (3) inches
Health ambulatory women over 65 Final: 8(2) inches; p <.025
Intervention: Alexander Technique Control: FR decreased by .74
Instruction inches; p<.005
Length / frequency of intervention
1 hr, 2x/week, 4 weeks
134 Morey, 1999 58 No Both with baseline measure of 13”;
Group 1: spinal flexibility plus No significant gains in either group
aerobic exercise
Group 2: aerobic only exercise
Community- 52 Simmons, 1996 59 Yes Significant improvement in water
dwelling Subjects mean age=80, with a fear exercisers (p<.001), land exercisers
elderly of falling (p<.03)
(Continued) 4 groups: water exercisers, land No change in other 2 groups
exercisers, water sitters, land sitters
94 Hakim, 2004 60 Yes Group 1: Better FR (p<.01)
Healthy older adults Group 2: Better at Forward (p<.01),
Control group: no exercise Backward (p<.001) and Left FR
Group 1: structured exercise (p<.001)
Group 2: Tai Chi intervention

38 Mak, 2003 64 Yes Exercisers: 27(4)

Regular exercisers vs. Tai Chi Tai Chi: 30(3)
practitioners p<.04 difference between 2 groups

Tests and Measures: Adult; 2012 FR Page 5

Do not copy without permission of Teresa Steffen
 Functional Reach

Community- 256 Li, 2004 61 Yes Ave. change after intervention

dwelling Control (N=131): Control showed no change in score;
elderly Exercise stretching Tai Chi grp showed increase
(Continued) Exp (N=125): (p<.001)
Tai Chi grp 6 mo follow-up: Tai Chi grp
Length / frequency of intervention showed less decline (p=.02)
60 min sessions, 3x/wk for 6 months Group differences significant?
Tai Chi grp showed greater change
in FR scores (p<.001)
108 Li, 2005 65 Yes Cobble stone mat walking:
Mean age = 78 11(3) to 13(3) inches
N=54 Coble stone mat walking Regular walking:
N=54 Regular walking 11(3) to 11(3) inches
60 min, 3x/week for 16 weeks Regular group x time interaction
(p<.01)

175 Li, 2004 61 Yes p < .001 between groups

Mean age = 77 (Randomized) Does not give data points
26 week Tai Chi 40-50 min
26 week stretching
Each group attend mean of 61
sessions
Community- 40 Sousa, 2005 62 Yes 9.4% increase strength group
dwelling Mean age =73; strengthening No change control group
elderly 3x/week for 14 weeks
(Continued) Mean age = 75; control (N=20)

Community- 22 Robinson, 2004 63 Yes Control:

dwelling Control (N=5): Pre: 10.56”
elderly No intervention Post: 13.89” (p<.01)
(Continued) Exercise grp (N=10 fallers, N=7 Fallers:
non-fallers): 6 week falls prevention Pre: 6.66”
program addressing strength, Post: 7.3”, NS
balance, flexibility and education Non-fallers:
Length / frequency of intervention Pre: 10.34”
50 min 2x/wk for 6 wks plus daily Post: 10.17”, NS
exercise at their home Group differences significant?
Fallers and nonfallers differed sign
from controls (p<.05)
HIV/AIDS 38 Galantino, 2005 66 Yes No difference between 2 exercise
Tai Chi (N=13) groups but significant difference
Aerobic Exercise (N=13) over time in both groups (p<.000)
Control (N=12) and between controls (p<.003).
2x/week for 8 weeks
Chronic TBI 20 Brown, 2005 67 No BWSTT 14(9) to 16(11)
BWSTT vs overground ambulation Overground 11(11) to 13(13)
30 minutes 2x/week
PD 8 Campbell, 2003 68 17.7cm = mean score of all tests on
FR remains stable over the cycle of all participants
medication and over days
Older Women 19 Gajdosik, 2005 69 No 34(5) to 35(4)
Age 65-89 Stretch (N=10) Control: 32(5) to 33(4)
Control (N=9)
8 wks; 3x/wk

Tests and Measures: Adult; 2012 FR Page 6

Do not copy without permission of Teresa Steffen
 Functional Reach

Healthy 11 Bellew, 2005 70 Yes/No Significant change in lateral reaches

Mean age =76 (p<.017) not FFR.
15 minutes balance training for 5
wks
10 Control (Mean age = 71)
Community- 73 Nitz, 2004 71 No No Change in FFR
dwelling fallers Mean age = 76
Balance group: 1x/week for 10 Yes Right Lateral Reach
weeks 15(1) to 17(1); p<.03
Control group: 1x/week for 10 Control
weeks 16(1) to 16(1); NS
TBI 13 Wade, 1997 75 No 28(12) to 33(9)cm
In patient rehabilitation
Frail elderly 34 Shimada, 2003 73 Yes
Control (N=9) 19(6) to 19(7); NS
Exercise with balance (N=12) 19(6) to 23(4); p<.05
Exercise with gait reduction (N=11) 16(6) to 15(7); NS
40 minutes 2-3x/week, 12 weeks; p<.022 significant difference
both exercise groups between balance and gait exercise
groups
Healthy 20 Skelton, 1995 74 No Data appears to be reported
Women Training 1x/week for 12 weeks incorrectly
20 Control
Community- 44 Duncan, 2003 76 No .53(.69)cm change
Living Stroke Intervention group
48 Usual care group .63(.76)cm change
Dx/o peripheral 10 Richardson, 2001 77 No FR did not change
neuropathy Exercise regimen
Length / frequency of intervention
3 weeks
s/p CVA 29 Bernhardt, 1998 78 Yes Improved significantly from 18.3
In-patient rehabilitation measured at (10.6)cm to 23.1(9.1)cm; (p<.004)
4 weeks and 8 weeks (Protocol used
a target)
s/p vertebral 10 Lyles, 199379 Yes c/fx: 26.9 (5.8) cm
compression fx Control (women without hx/o fx) vs. s/fx: 34.5 (5.3) cm
women with fx Significant differences between
groups
s/p LE 30 Mueller and Salsich, 1997 80 Yes DM-TMA: 19.1(8.6) cm
amputation Footwear changes in people with Controls: 31.5(9.1) cm
diabetes (DM) and transmetatarsal Group differences significant?
(TMA) amputation (N=15) DM-TMA group significantly lower
than control (p <.001)
30 Mueller and Strube, 1997 80 No No differences in FR
Six types of footwear tried on people
with diabetes and transmetatarsal
amputation
Dx/o Parkinson 46 Schenkman, 1998 23 Yes Ave. change after intervention
Disease Mean age=71 Exercise group:
Exercise group run by PT vs. control Improved by .62 (1.75) inches
group Control group:
10 weeks (30 sessions) Declined by: -.11(1.64) inches
Group differences significant?
(p<.05)

Tests and Measures: Adult; 2012 FR Page 7

Do not copy without permission of Teresa Steffen
 Functional Reach

Older adults in 28 Weiner, 1993 27 Yes Improved significantly over rehab

in-patient rehab Male veterans duration; no improvement in
Experimental group (N=15): controls
Receiving daily in-patient PT
Control group (N=13)
LTC Residents 47 McMurdo, 2000 81 No No change in FR
Seated balance exercises
2 times per week for 6 months
15 Taylor, 2003 82 Yes Significant improvement from 4” to
Walking program 5.7”
Women in assistive living residence (p<.001)
9 weeks (frequency decided by
resident)
s/p hip fx 21 Sherrington, 1997 83 No No change in FR
Stepping exercises
5-50 reps; 1x/day at home for 1
month
Dx/o 17 Carmeli, 2003 84 No No change in FR
intellectual (Mean age =57); Ball exercises and
disability treadmill training for 6 months
Community- 22 Robinson, 2004 63 Yes Control:
dwelling Control (N=5): Pre: 10.56”
elderly No intervention Post: 13.89” (p<.01)
(Continued) Exercise grp (N=10 fallers, N=7 Fallers:
non-fallers): 6 week falls prevention Pre: 6.66”
program addressing strength, Post: 7.3”, NS
balance, flexibility and education Non-fallers:
Length / frequency of intervention Pre: 10.34”
50 min 2x/wk for 6 wks plus daily Post: 10.17”, NS
exercise at their home Group differences significant?
Fallers and nonfallers differed sign
from controls (p<.05)
Other 12 Richardson, 2000 85 Yes Limit FR from 15.1 (2.1) inches to
Halo vests on young adults vs. 12.9 (1.4) inches; (p<.01)
without it on
193 Cummings, 1997 86 Yes 24 cm (N=105) Normal
Older women with foot binding in 21cm (N=55) Bound
China p<.05
Drug Studies Drug studies that used FR as an outcome measure:
diazepam effect on balance of older adults 87
levodopa effect in pts with progressive supranuclear palsy. 88

Ceiling or floor effect: There is no ceiling or floor effect on this test.

Reference data: All studies that reported inches were converted to centimeters (cm)
Resource N= Subjects FR Scores
Weiner, 1992 26 45 Community-dwelling elderly; male & mean (SD) = 27.68cm (7.87)
female; mean age = 78 (8.4)
Newton, 1997 251 Seniors; average age 74 mean (SD)= 22.60 (8.38) cm
89

Fried, 2000 43 436 Community-dwelling women, 70-80 mean=29.1 cm

years; not cognitively impaired

Tests and Measures: Adult; 2012 FR Page 8

Do not copy without permission of Teresa Steffen
 Functional Reach

Males: means (SD)

20-40 = 42.49cm (4.93)
41-69 = 38.05cm (5.61)
volunteers; age 21-87; male and
70-87 = 33.43cm (3.94)
Duncan, 1990 1 131 female
Females: means (SD)
20-40 = 37.49cm (5.54)
41-69 = 35.10cm (5.59)
70-87 = 26.60cm (8.97)
Shigematsu, 373 Japanese women mean(SD)= 28.8 (7.4) cm
2000 90
Mecagni, 2000 34 Women, age 64-87 mean(SD) = 22.1 cm (7.1) or 8.7 inches (2.8)
10

Rockwood, 1301 Mean age 78.1 years (range 69-104; in Median:

2000 12 Canadian Study of Healthy Aging; With cognitive impairment: 25 cm
nationwide representative sample) The Median:
farthest reach score was used. Without cognitive impairment: 29 cm
Wolf, 1999 14 28 Subjects with stroke compared to 28 s/p stroke:
subjects without impairment. This mean (SD) = 21.92 cm (6.57)
study used the average of 3 trials.
without impairment:
mean(SD) = 32.11 cm (5.88)
Grill, 1999 38 37 Persons with PD, mean age of 68 initial visit:
mean (SD) = 34.04cm (6.86)
one-year follow-up:
mean (SD) =33.53cm (SD 8.13)
Smithson, 1998 30 Persons with PD, mean age of 71 with a history of falls:
25
This study compared persons with a mean (SD) = 24.39cm (5.84) for the first test
history of falls to those with no history and 25.40cm (6.35) for the second test
of falls.
without a history of falls:
mean(SD) = 29.97cm (3.81) for the first test and
32.00 cm (5.59) for the second test.

Schenkman, 251 Community dwelling adults (mean age subjects with PD:
2000 91 = 71) This study assessed spinal mean (SD) = 31.50cm (7.62)
flexibility and balance.
n=56 with PD subjects without PD:
n=195 without PD mean(SD) =34.29cm (5.84)
Aoyagi, 2000 92 447 Community-dwelling Japanese Exercisers:
persons (mean age =66). This was a Women = 29.6 (.5) cm
study of bone mineral density (BMD). Men= 29.5 (1.0) cm

Non-exercisers:
Women = 28.6 (.4) cm
Men= 29.2 (.8) cm
Purser, 1999 93 185 Older women with osteoporosis and Women with osteoporosis and vertebral fractures
vertebral fractures. 28.96cm (5.84)

Tests and Measures: Adult; 2012 FR Page 9

Do not copy without permission of Teresa Steffen
 Functional Reach

Lehmann, 2006 50 Persons with late effects of polio, Men: 21.3(9.5)cm (N=21)
94
mean age = 60 Women: 25.2(8.9)cm (N=29)
All: 23.5(9.3)cm (N=50)
Frzovic, 2000 14 Subjects with MS and 14 controls in AM: 39.19 (5.88) cm
19
in PM: 39.92 (6.66) cm
Davis, 1999 41 705 Japanese women in Hawaii (mean age Mean (SD) =30.9 (6.1) cm
= 74)
Stack, 2005 95 51 (N=33) Grade III, PD 18cm (13-23)
(N=18) Grade IV, PD 15cm (7-21)
Marsh, 2005 22 140 Community dwelling; Mean age = 75 30.5(6.6)cm
Cim biz, 2005 30 Diabetic neuropathic; Mean age = 58 34(13)cm
96
30 Control; Mean age = 67 44(14)cm
Chow, 2004 32 16 Females with osteoporosis/Osteopenia; 30(9)cm
Mean age=67
Hageman, 1995 24 (N=12) Younger adults; Mean age = 43(4)cm
20
25 37(6)cm
(N=12) Older adults; Mean age = 65
Smith, 2004 97 75 Stroke 23(9)cm
Stankovic, 30 PD Mean age = 68 Without Falls: 30(6)cm
2004 98 Mean age = 72 With Falls: 21(6)cm
20 Control Mean age = 70 32(6)cm
Teri, 1998 99 30 Alzheimer’s 25(15)cm
Wolf, 2003 100 145 Tai Chi participants; Mean age = 81 30(8)cm
141 Wellness Class; Mean age = 81 27(8)cm
Goldberg, 2005 8 Young; Mean age = 24 34.80cm (2.29)
101
7 Balance unimpaired; Mean age = 74 26.16cm (1.52)
8 Balance impaired; Mean age = 80 26.92cm (2.03)
Huang, 1996 569 Post-menopausal Japanese American Predicted performance on FR; average FR was
102
women; ages 55-93; s/p vertebral 33.1 (6.1) cm
compression fracture
NOTE: FR declines with age in both genders. 1, 20, 92

Interpreting results:
It measures a subject’s forward limit of stability, which is considered one part of postural control (or balance)
assessment. Duncan (1990) 1 concludes that FR is a good clinical measure of the margin of stability and is
“conceptually related” to the excursion of the center of pressure. Others are suggesting that FR is a weak measure
of stability limits (low correlation with FR and displacement of center of pressure, .38). Movement of the trunk
seems to influence the test more than displacement of center of pressure. 103
When the Functional Reach 104 test and platform measures of postural sway were used with clients with hemiparesis,
they appeared to be evaluating comparable standing-balance abilities. In a kinematic study of 34 young subjects
(20-36) and 33 older subjects (60-76 years), spinal motion during forward FR was characterized by forward and
lateral trunk flexion, thoracolumbar and lower body rotation. Young subjects displaced their center of pressure
further forward (45.2 cm) and through a greater percentage of their initial base of support than older subjects (37.1
cm). The younger group had more forward trunk flexion and thoracolumbar rotation. 105 O’Brien, et al (1997) found
a weak correlation between inclination of the upper thoracic spine and functional reach. 106 Wernick-Robinson
(1999) found FR does not measure dynamic balance because people with vestibular hypofunction did as well. 107
Daubney and Culham (1999) 108 found that ankle plantar-flexion force accounted for 13% of the score on the FR.
Correlations were found between FR and hip extensor strength (.45) and hip flexor strength (.47). 30 Eight hundred
thirty three community dwelling elderly 64-79 years old (457 were Mexican American) participated in a home
assessment. For each degree increase in shoulder ROM, the likelihood of having a short reach was reduced by 3%
and for each degree increase in elbow ROM, the likelihood of having a short reach was reduced by 2%. 109

Tests and Measures: Adult; 2012 FR Page 10

Do not copy without permission of Teresa Steffen
 Functional Reach
In a very large study (N=303) of people in community nursing homes significant difference in FR were found in
height, age, and lower extremity weakness but not in assistive device, upper extremity weakness, ADL’s, weight,
MMSE, Depression, gender, hearing, vision or B.P. 110

Other:
Reach in Four Directions:
In 1997, the first “reach in four directions” (RFDT) results were published. This study included a large minority
population. (N=204-250) The mean forward reach was 8.9 inches, right 6.8 inches and left 6.6 inches. 89 A small
study (N=7) found a .43 -.65 correlation between BFR and ankle dorsiflexion (df). Improvements in df improved
BFR. 111

Lateral Reach measurements were published in 1999. Validity of lateral reach results showed a significant
correlation with COPE (r=0.33) measurements and laboratory measure of reach (r=.65). Test-retest reliability
(r=0.94) was also found. 112 Lateral reaches to the right and left were not significantly different between the sides.
For their analysis, right side measurements were used. Age was negatively correlated with Lateral Reach results.
Results were not separated into cohorts. This study included 60 females (mean age=72.5). Lateral Reach in 22
community dwelling females (average age 81) was 14.3 (4.5) cm left and 14.9 (4.6) cm right. 113 Lateral reach in
383 Japanese (mean age = 79) 19(12)cm 31 Lateral reach in sitting of 18 elderly persons showed a -.63 correlation
between rising time and lateral reach in sitting. 114

Results of reach in four directions of 87community dwelling adults is reported in Table 5-1.

Functional Reach used for persons in wheelchairs:

Functional reach has been used to test the utility of different wheelchair belting techniques in people with spinal
cord injuries 115 and to determine whether the test could be used to measure differences among levels of SCI injury.
116

Forward, right and left functional reach on 53 seniors who sat in a wheelchair were compared for people sitting on a
cushion vs a sling. 117 Forward and lateral reach for 31 healthy and 31 subjects with hemiparesis in a sitting position
are published by Hsu (2005). 118

Table 5-1
Means (X), Standard Deviations (SD) and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) of the Multi-Directional Reach Test by Age and Gender
Cohorts (in centimeters).
Forward Backward Left Right
(cm) (cm) (cm)
(cm)
Age
(yrs)
Gender N X SD CI X SD CI X SD CI X SD CI

Male 9 37 6 32-41 28 6 24-32 22 4 19-26 22 4 19-25

50-59
Female 15 32 6 28-35 20 6 16-23 18 4 16-20 18 4 16-20

Male 9 30 5 27-34 25 9 17-32 19 3 17-21 20 3 19-23

60-69
Female 10 30 5 24-30 20 8 14-25 17 5 13-20 15 5 13-18

Male 10 29 5 26-32 19 7 14-24 18 4 15-21 17 4 15-19

70-79
Female 14 29 7 25-33 15 7 11-19 15 7 11-19 16 7 12-19

Male 4 27 9 13-40 16 4 9-23 17 7 6-28 16 7 8-23

80+
Female 12 22 6 18-26 11 4 8-13 12 3 10-14 13 3 11-15

TOTAL
83 29 7 28-29 19 8 17-20 17 5 16-18 17 5 16-18
SAMPLE
Steffen, TM, Mollinger, LA (2005). Age-and gender-related test performance in community-dwelling adults:
multi-directional reach test, berg balance scale, sharpened Romberg tests, activities-specific balance confidence
scale, and physical performance test. Journal of Neurological Physical Therapy 29(4): 181-188.

Tests and Measures: Adult; 2012 FR Page 11

Do not copy without permission of Teresa Steffen
 Functional Reach
References:
1. Duncan P, Weiner D, Chandler J, Studenski S. Functional Reach: A new clinical measure of balance. J
Gerontol Med Sci. 1990;45:M192-197.
2. Clark S, Iltis PW, Anthony Cj, Toews A. Comparison of older adult performance during the functional-
reach and limits-of-stability tests. J Aging Phys Act. 2005;13:p. 266-275.
3. Mackenzie M. A simplified measure of balance by functional reach. Physiother Res Int. 1999;4(3):233-236.
4. Billek-sawhney B, Gay J. The functional reach test. Are 3 trials necessary? Top Geriat Rehabil. 2005;vol
21:144-148.
5. Arnadottir S, Mercer V. Effects of footwear on measurements of balance and gait in women between the
ages of 65 and 93 years. Phys Ther. 2000;80(1):17-27.
6. Mcllroy W, Maki B. Prefered placement of the feet during quiet stance: development of standardized foot
placement for balance testing. Clin Biomech. 1997;12(1):66-70.
7. Rugelj D. The relationship between innervation density and dynamic balance function. Cell Mol Biol Lett.
2002;7(1):149-150.
8. Chevan J, Atherton H, Hart M, Holland C, Larue B, Kaufman R. Nontarget-and target-oriented functional
reach among older adults at risk for falls. J Geriatr Phys Ther. 2003;26(2):22-25.
9. Huang M, Burgess R, Weber M, Greenwald N. Performance of balance impaired elders on three balance
tests under two visual conditions. J Geriatr Phys Ther. 2006;29(1):3-7.
10. Mecagni C, Smith JP, Roberts K, O'Sullivan S. Balance and ankle range of motion in community-dwelling
women aged 64 to 87 years: A correlational study. Phys Ther. 2000;80:1004-1011.
11. Franchignoni F, Tesio L, Martino M, Ricupero C. Reliability of four simple, quantitative tests of balance
and mobility in healthy elderly females. Aging Clin Exp Res. 1998;10:26-31.
12. Rockwood K, Awalt E, Carver D, MacKnight C. Feasibility and mesurement properties of the functional
reach and the timed up and go tests in the Canadian study of health and aging. J Gerontol Med Sci.
2000;55A:M70-M73.
13. Light K, Purser J, Rose D. The functional reach test for balance: criterion-related validity of clinical
observations. Issues on Ageing. 1995;18:5-9.
14. Wolf S, Catlin P, Gage K, Gurucharri K, Robertson R, Stephen K. Establishing the reliability and validity
of measurements of walking time using the emory functional ambulation profile. Phys Ther. 1999;79:1122-
1133.
15. Kileff J, Ashburn A. A pilot study of the effect of aerobic exercise on people with moderate disability
multiple sclerosis. Clin Rehabil. 2005;19:165-169.
16. Giorgetti M, Harris B, Jette A. Reliability of clinical balance outcome measures in the elderly. Physiother
Res Intl. 1998;3(4):274-283.
17. Holbein-Jenny M, Billek-sawhney B, Beckman E, Smith T. Balance in personal care home residents: a
comparison of the berg balance scale, the multi-directional reach test, and the activities-specific balance
confidence scale. J Geriatr Phys Ther. 2005;28(2):48-53.
18. Schenkman M, Cutson TM, Kuchibhatla M, Chandler J, Pieper C. Reliabilty of impairment and physical
performance measures for person's with Parkinson's disease. Phys Ther. 1997;77:19-26.
19. Frzovic D, Morris M, Vowels L. Clinical tests of standing balance: Performance of persons with multiple
sclerosis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2000;81:215-221.
20. Hageman P. Gait characteristics of healthy elderly: A literature review. Issues on Aging. 1995;18:14-18.
21. Lim L, van Wegen E, de Goede C, et al. Measuring gait and gait-related activities in parkinson's patients
own home environment: a reliability, responsiveness and feasibility study. Parkinsonism Relat D.
2005;11:19-24.
22. Marsh AP, Rejeski JW, Hutton SL, Brown CL, Ip E, Guralnik JM. Development of a lateral mobility task
to identify individuals at risk for mobility disability and functional decline. J Aging Phys Act. 2005;vol.
13:p. 363-381.
23. Schenkman M, Cutson TM, Kuchibhatla M, et al. Exercise to improve spinal flexibility and function for
people with Parkinson's disease: A randomized, controlled study. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1998;46:1207-1216.
24. Sherrington C, Lord S. Reliability of simple protable tests of physical performance in older people after hip
fracture. Clin Rehabil. 2005;19:496-504.
25. Smithson F, Morris M, Iansek R. Performance on clinical tests of balance in Parkinson's disease. Phys
Ther. 1998;78(6):577-592.
26. Weiner D, Duncan P, Chandler J, Studenski S. Functional reach: A marker of physical frailty. J Am
Geriatr Soc. 1992;40(3):203-207.

Tests and Measures: Adult; 2012 FR Page 12

Do not copy without permission of Teresa Steffen
 Functional Reach
27. Weiner D, Bongiorni D, Studenski S, Duncan P, Kochersberger G. Does functional reach improve with
rehabilitation? Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1993;74:796-800.
28. Chandler J, Duncan P, Kochersberger G, Studenski S. Is lower extremity strength gain associated with
improvement in physical performance and disability in frail, community-dwelling elders? Arch Phys Med
Rehabil. 1998;79:24-30.
29. Mann G, Whitney S, Redfern M, Borello-France D, Furman J. Functional reach and single leg stance in
patients with peripheral vestibular disorders. J Vestib Res. 1996;6(5):343-353.
30. Salsich G, Mueller M. Relationship between measures of function, strength and walking speed in patients
with diabetes and transmetatarsal amputation. Clin Rehabil. 1997;11:60-67.
31. Takahashi T, Ishida K, Yamamoto H, et al. Modifications of the functional reach test: analysis of lateral
and anterior functional each in community-dwelling older people. Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2006;vol.
42:p.167-173.
32. Chow S, Moffat M. Relationship of thoracic kyphosis to functional reach and lower-extremity joint range
of motion and muscle length in women with osteoporosis or osteopenia: a pilot study. Top Geriatr Rehabil.
2004;20(4):297-306.
33. Brooks D, Davis A, Naglie G. Validity of 3 physical performance measures in inpatient geriatric
rehabilitation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2006;87:105-110.
34. Bennie S, Bruner K, Dizon A, Fritz H, goodman B, Peteson S. Measurements of balance: Comparison of
the timed "Up and Go" test and Functional Reach with the Berg Balance Scale. J Phys Ther Sci.
2003;15:93-97.
35. Harrison A. The influence of pathology, pain, balance, and self-efficacy on function in women with
osteoarthritis of the knee. Phys Ther. 2004;84:822-831.
36. Thomas M, Jankovic J, Suteerawattananon M, et al. Clinical gait and balance scale (GABS): validation and
utilization. J Neurol Sci. 2004;217:89-99.
37. Thapa P, Gideon P, Brockman K, Fought R, Ray W. Clinical and biomechanical measure of balance as fall
predictors in ambulatory nursing home residents. J Gerontol Med Sci. 1996;51A(5):M239-M246.
38. Grill S. Postural instabilty in Parkinson's disease. Md Med J. 1999;48(4):179-181.
39. Duncan P, Studenski S, Chandler J, Prescott B. Functional Reach: Predicitive validity in a sample of
elderly male veterans. J Gerontol Med Sci. 1992;47(3):M93-98.
40. Cho C, Kamen G. Detecting balance deficits in frequent fallers using clinical and quantitative evaluation
tools. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1998;46:426-430.
41. Davis J, Ross P, Nevitt M, Wasnich R. Risk factors for falls and for serious injuries on falling among older
Japanese women in Hawaii. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1999;47:792-798.
42. Spilg E, Martin B, Mitchel S, Aitchison T. Falls risk following discharge from a geriatric day hospital. Clin
Rehabil. 2003;17:334-340.
43. Fried L, Bandeen-Roche K, Chaves P, Johnson B. Preclinical mobility disability predicts incident mobility
disability in older women. J Gernotol. 2000;55A(1):M43-M52.
44. Davis J, Ross P, Preston S, Nevitt M, Wasnich R. Strength, physical activity, and body mass index:
relationship to performance-based measures and activities of daily living among older japanese women in
Hawaii. J Am Geriatr Soc.1998;46:274-279.
45. Morita M, Takamura N, Kusano Y, et al. Relationship between falls and physical performance measures
among community-dwelling elderly women in Japan. Aging Clin Exp Res. 2005;17:211-216.
46. Wallmann H. Comparison of elderly nonfallers and fallers on performance measures of functional reach,
sensory organization, and limits of stability. J Gerontol Med Sci. 2001;56A(9):M580-M583.
47. Brauer S, Burns Y, Galley P. A prospective study of laboratory and clinical measures of postural stability
to predict community-dwelling fallers. Gerontology. 2000;55A(8):M469-M476.
48. Lin S, Tsai T, Lee I, Wu Y. Perception of unsteadiness in patients with dizziness: Association with
handicap and imbalance. J Biomed Sci. 2002;9:428-435.
49. Dite W, Temple V. A clinical test of stepping and change of direction to identify multiple falling older
adults. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2002;83:1566-1571.
50. Behrman A, Light K, Flynn S, Thigpen M. Is the functional reach test useful for identifying falls risk
among individuals with Parkinson's Disease? Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2002;83:538-542.
51. Thomas JI, Lane JV. A pilot study to explore the predictive validity of 4 measures of falls risk in frail
elderly patients. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2005;vol 86:p 1636-1640.
52. Wang C, Olson S, Protas E. Physical-performance tests to evaluate mobility disability in community-
dwelling elders. J Aging Phys Act. 2005;13:184-197.

Tests and Measures: Adult; 2012 FR Page 13

Do not copy without permission of Teresa Steffen
 Functional Reach
53. Okumiya K, Matsubayashi K, Wada T, Kimura S, Doi Y, Ozawa T. Effects of exercise on neurobehavioral
functional in community-dwelling older people more than 75 years of age. J Am Geriatr Soc.
1996;44(5):569-572.
54. Rogers ME, Fernandez J, Bohlken R. Training to reduce postural sway and increase functional rearch in the
elderly. J Occup Rehabil. 2001;11(4):291-298.
55. Barrett C, Smerdely P. A comparison of community-based resistance exercise and flexibility exercise for
seniors. Aust J Physiother. 2002;48:215-219.
56. Shigematsu R, Tanaka K, Holland G, et al. Validation of the functional fitness age (FFA) index in older
Japanese women. Aging Clin. Exp. Res. 2001;13:385-390.
57. Dennis R. Functional reach improvement in normal older women after alexander technique instruction. J
Gerontol Med Sci. 1999;54A(1):M8-M11.
58. Morey M, Schenkman M, Studenski S, et al. Spinal-flexibility-plus-aerobic-only training: effects of a
randomized clinical trial on function in at-risk older adults. J Gerontol Med Sci. 1999;54A(7):M335-M342.
59. Simmons V, Hansen P. Effectiveness of water exericse on postural mobility in the well elderly: an
experimental study on balance enhancement. J Gerontol Med Sci. 1996;51A(5):M233-M238.
60. Hakim R, DiCicco J, Burke J, Hoy T, Roberts E. Differences in balance related measures among older
adults participating in Tai Chi, structured exercise, or no exercise. J Geriatr Phys Ther. 2004;27(1):11-15.
61. Li F, Harmer P, Fisher K, Mcauley E. Tai Chi: improving functional balance and predicting subsequent
falls in older persons. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2004;36(12):2046-2052.
62. Sousa N, Sampaio J. Effects of progressive strength training on the performance of the functional reach test
and the timed get-up-and-go test in an elderly population from the rural north of portugal. Am J Hum Biol.
2005;vol 17:p. 746-751.
63. Robinson B, Gordon J, Wallentine S, Visio M. Relationship between lower-extremity joint torque and the
risk for falls in a group of community dwelling older adults. Physiother Theor Pract. 2004;20:155-173.
64. Mak M, Ng P. Mediolateral sway in single-leg stance is the best discriminator of balance performance for
Tai-Chi practitioners. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2003;84:683-686.
65. Li F, Fisher KJ, Harmer P. Improving physical function and blood pressure in older adults through
cobblestone mat walking: a randomized trial. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2005;vol. 53:p. 1305-1312.
66. Galantino ML, Shepard K, Krafft L, et al. The effect of group aerobic exercise and t'ai chi on functional
outcomes and quality of life for persons living with acquired immunodeficiency syndrome. J Altern
Complement Med. 2005;11(6):1085-1092.
67. Brown T, Mount J, Rouland B, Kautz K, Barnes R, Kim J. Body weight-supported treadmill training versus
conventional gait training for people with chronic traumatic brain injury. J Head Trauma Rehabil.
2005;20(5):402-415.
68. Campbell F, Ashburn A, Thomas P. An exploratory study of the consistency of balance control and the
mobility of people with Parkinson's disease (PD) between medication doses. Clin Rehabil. 2003;17:318-
324.
69. Gajdosik RL, Vander Linden DW, McNair PJ, Williams AK, Riggin TJ. Effects of an eight-week
stretching program on the passive-elastic properties and function of the calf muscles of older women. Clin
Biomech. 2005 2005;20:973-983.
70. Bellew J, Fenter P, Chelette B, Moore R, Loreno D. Effects of a short-term dynamic balance training
program in healthy older women. J Geriatr Phys Ther. 2005;28(1):4-8.
71. Nitz J, Choy N. The efficacy of a specific balance-strategy training programme for preventing falls among
older people: a pilot randomised controlled trial. Age Ageing. 2004;33:52-58.
72. Ramsbottom R, Ambler A, Potter J, Jordan B, Nevill A, Williams C. The effect of 6 months training on leg
power, balance, and functional mobility of independently living adults over 70 years old. J Aging Phys Act.
2004;12:497-510.
73. Shimada H, Uchiyama Y, Kakurai S. Specific effects of balance and gait exercises on physical function
among the frail elderly. Clin Rehabil. 2003;17:472-479.
74. Skelton D, Young A, Greig C, Malbut K. Effects of resistance training on strength, power, and selected
functional abiliteis of women aged 75 and older. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1995;43:1081-1087.
75. Wade L, Canning C, Fowler V, Felmingham K, Baguley I. Changes in postural sway and performance of
functional tasks during rehabilitation after traumatic brain injury. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1997;78:1107-
1111.
76. Duncan P, Studenski S, Richard L, et al. Randomized clinical trial of therapeutic exercise in subacute
stroke. Stroke. 2003;34:2173-2180.

Tests and Measures: Adult; 2012 FR Page 14

Do not copy without permission of Teresa Steffen
 Functional Reach
77. Richardson J, Sandman D, Vella S. A Focused Exercise Regimen Improves Clinical Measures of Balance
in Patients With Peripheral Neuropathy. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2001;82(February):205-209.
78. Bernhardt J, Ellis P, S. D, Hill K. Changes in balance and locomotion measures during rehabilitation
following stroke. Physiother Res Int. 1998;3(2):109-122.
79. Lyles K, Gold D, Shipp K, Pieper C, S M, Mulhausen P. Association of osteoporotic vertebral compression
fractures with impaired functional status. Am J Med. 1993;94(6):595-601.
80. Mueller M, Salsich G, Strube M. Functional limitations in patients with diabetes and transmetatarsal
amputations. Phys Ther. 1997;77:937-943.
81. McMurdo M, Millar A, Daly F. A randomized controlled trial of fall prevention strategies in old peoples'
homes. Gerontology. 2000;46:83-87.
82. Taylor L, Whittington F, Hollingsworth C, et al. Assessing the effectiveness of a walking program on
physical function of residents living in an assisted living facility. J Community Health Nurs. 2003;20(1):15-
26.
83. Sherrington C, Lord S. Home exercise to improve strength and walking velocity after hip fracture: A
randomized controlled trial. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1997;78:208-212.
84. Carmeli E, Bar-Chad S, Lotan M. Five clinical tests to assess balance following ball exercises and treadmill
training in adult persons with intellectual disability. J Gerontol. 2003;58A:M767-M772.
85. Richardson J, Ross A, Riley B, Rhodes R. Halo vest effect on balance. Arch Phys Med Rehabil.
2000;81:255-257.
86. Cummings S, Ling X, Stone K. Consequences of foot binding among older women in beijing, china. Am J
Public Health. 1997;87(10):1677-1679.
87. Cutson T, Gray S, Hughes M, Carson S, Hanlon J. Effect of a single dose of diazepam on balance measures
in older people. J Am Geriatr Soc.1997;45:435-440.
88. Ondo W, Warrior D, Overby A, et al. Computerized posturography analysis of progressive supranuclear
palsy. Arch Neurol. 2000;57(10):1464-1469.
89. Newton R. Balance screening of an inner city older adult population. Arch Phys Med Rehabil.
1997;78:587-591.
90. Shigematsu R, Tanaka K. Age scale for assessing functional fitness in older Japanese ambulatory women.
Aging Clin Exp Res. 2000;12:256-263.
91. Schenkman M, Morey M, Kuchibhatla M. Spinal flexibility and balance control among community-
dwelling adults with an without Parkinson's disease. J Gerontol. 2000;55(8):M441-M445.
92. Aoyagi K, Ross PD, Hayashi T, et al. Calcaneus Bone Mineral Density is Lower Among Men and Women
with Lower Physical Performance. Calcified Tissue Int. 2000;67:106-110.
93. Purser J, Pieper C, Branch L, Shipp K, Gold D, Lyles K. Spinal deformity andmobility self-confidence
among women with osteoporosis and vertebral fractures. Aging Clin Exp Res. 1999;11(4):235-245.
94. Lehmann K, Sunnerhagen KS, Willen C. Postural control in persons with late effects of polio. Acta Neurol
Scand. 2006;vol 113:p.55-61.
95. Stack E, Ashburn A, Jupp K. Postural instability during reaching tasks in parkinson's disease. Physio Res
Int. 2005;10(3):146-153.
96. Cimbiz A, Cakir O. Evaluation of balance and physical fitness in diabetic neuropathic patients. J Diabetes
Complications. 2005;19:160-164.
97. Smith P, Hembree J, Thompson M. Berg balance scale and functional reach: determining the best clinical
tool for individuals post acute stroke. Clin Rehabil. 2004;18:811-818.
98. Stankovic I. The effect of physical therapy on balance of patients with Parkinson's disease. Int J Rehab Res.
2004;27(1):53-57.
99. Teri L, McCurry S, Buchner D, et al. Exercise and activity level in alzheimer's disease: a potential
treatment focus. J Rehabil Res Dev. 1998;35(4):411-419.
100. Wolf S, Sattin R, Kutner M, O'Grady M, Greenspan A, Gregor R. Intense Tai Chi exercise training and fall
occurrences in older, transitionally frail adults: a ramdomized, controller trial. J Am Geriatr Soc.
2003;51:1693-1701.
101. Goldberg A, Hernandez M, Alexander N. Trunk repositioning errors are increased in balance-impaired
older adults. J Gerontol. 2005;60A(10):1310-1314.
102. Huang C, Ross P, Wasnich R. Vertebral fracture and other predictors of physical impairment and health
care utilization. Arch Intern Med. 1996;156:2469-2475.
103. Jonsson E, Henriksson M, Hirschfeld H. Does the functional reach test reflect stability limits in elderly
people? J Rehabil Med. 2002;35:26-30.

Tests and Measures: Adult; 2012 FR Page 15

Do not copy without permission of Teresa Steffen
 Functional Reach
104. Fishman M, Colby L, Sachs L, Nichols D. Comparison of upper-extremity balance tasks and force platform
testing in persons with hemiparesis. Phys Ther. 1997;77(10):1052-1062.
105. Cavanaugh J, Shinberg M, Ray L, Shipp K, Kuchibhatla M, Schenkman M. Kinematic characterization of
standing reach: comparison of younger vs. older subjects. Clin Biomech. 1999;14:271-279.
106. O'Brien K, Culham E, Pickles B. Balance and skeletal alignment in a group of elderly female fallers and
nonfallers. J Gerontol Biol Sci. 1997;52A(4):B221-B226.
107. Wernick-Robinson M, Krebs D, Giorgetti M. Functional reach: Does it really measure dynamic balance?
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1999;80(March):262-269.
108. Daubney M, Culham E. Lower-extremity muscle force and balance performance in adults aged 65 years
and older. Phys Ther. 1999;79(12):1177-1185.
109. Escalante A, Lichtenstein M, Hazuda H. Determinats of shoulder and elbow flexion range: results from the
San Antonio Longitudinal Study of Aging. Arthritis Care Res. 1999;12(4):277-286.
110. Thapa P, Gideon P, Fought R, Kromicki M, Ray W. Comparison of clinical and biomechanical measures of
balance and mobility in elderly nursing home residents. J Am Geriatric Soc. 1994;42:493-500.
111. Petty J, Mercer V, Gross M, Riegger-Krugh C. Relationship between maximum ankle dorsiflexion range of
motion and maximal posterior horizontal excursion in standing. Issues on Ageing. 2000;23(3):7-14.
112. Brauer S, Burns Y, Galley P. Lateral reach: A clinical measure of medio-lateral postural stability.
Physiother Res Intl. 1999;4:81-85.
113. DeWaard B, Bentrup B, Hollman J, Brasseur J. Relationship of the functional reach and lateral reach tests
in elderly females. J Geriatr Phys Ther. 2002;25:4-9.
114. Kaneko J, Morala D, Kurosawa K, et al. Relationship between movement patterns and physical fitness
elements during rising from the supine to sitting postion in community-dwelling elderly persons. J Phys
Ther Sci. 2003;15:87-91.
115. Curtis K, Kindlin C, Reich K, White D. Functional reach in wheelchair users: The effects of trunk and
lower extremity stabilization. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1995;76:360-367.
116. Lynch S, Leahy P, Barker S. Reliability of measurements obtained with a modified functional reach test in
subjects with spinal cord injury. Phys Ther. 1998;78(2):128-133.
117. Amos L, Brimner A, Dierckman H, et al. Effects of positioning on functional reach. Phys Occup Ther
Geriatr. 2001;20(1):59-72.
118. Hsu W-L, Yang Y-R, Hong C-T, Wang RY. Ankle muscle activation during functional reach in
hemiparetic and healthy subjects. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2005;84(10):p. 749-755.

Tests and Measures: Adult; 2012 FR Page 16

Do not copy without permission of Teresa Steffen