A Reliability Study for Standing Functional Reach Test Using Modified and Traditional Rulers

Abstract

The purposes of the study were (1) to estimate the standing reach distance, test-retest, and interrater reliability of the functional reach test using traditional and modified rulers and (2) to evaluate the difference in the scores based on one trial, the mean of two or of three trials. Sixty-four individuals (M age = 36.3 yr., SD = 19.5, range = 19 to 70 years; 24 men, 40 women) volunteered to participate. Differences in measurements were examined. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was used to assess the test-retest and interrater reliability. Analysis indicated that the reach score measured by the rulers were not statistically significantly different, but the three measurements were significantly different. Reliability estimates were similar for the two mean scores, the mean of two trials (ICC2,2 = 0.87-1.00) or three trials (ICC2,3 = 0.89-1.00). The standard error of measurement (SEM) was always smaller when the modified ruler was used than when the traditional ruler was used. Performance with the modified ruler is an alternative to that with a traditional ruler. The mean of two trials as a measure of performance of reach distance when standing is recommended with either ruler.

Reliability and Validity of the Hand Reach Star Excursion Balance Test

“…Furthermore, the inter-rater reliability of the HSEBT was high, with ICC values ranging from 0.90 to 0.98. FR inter-rater ICC values between 0.73 and 0.98 have been reported [22,27,28], while SEBT values range from 0.81 to 0.93 [21,24,26,29]. Even though our ICC results showed high HSEBT inter-rater reliability, the repeated measure ANOVA results suggested that in five of the 20 tests at least one rater differed systematically from the other raters ( Table 2).…”

“…The SEM values reported for the SEBT range from 2.2 to 4.8 cm and 2.0 to 5.0 cm for test-retest and inter-rater reliability, respectively [21,23,30], while FR ranged from 2.1 to 4.0 cm and 2.1 to 4.3 cm for inter-rater and test-retest reliability, respectively [22]. In summary, the SEM values found for HSEBT are comparable or lower than those established for the SEBT and FR.…”

“…The HSEBT has moderate to high test-retest and inter-rater reliability, with ICC results similar to or better than comparable tests such as SEBT [21] and functional reach test (FR) [22]. Response stability (SEM and CV) was also comparable to these tests [16,21,22], while MDC 95 was smaller than what has been reported for the SEBT [23]. No learning effect between test sessions was observed, but there was a small yet systematic difference between raters in five tests.…”

“…The HSEBT test-retest reliability ICC values ranged from 0.77 to 0.96, while FR test-retest reliability ICC values of 0.89 and 0.92 have been reported [16,22]. Upper quarter Y balance tests and the multi-directional reach tests were found to range from 0.80 to 0.99 [19] and 0.93 to 0.95 [13], respectively.…”

An investigation of the use of the Kinect system as a measure of dynamic balance and forward reach in the elderly

“…17 It is reliable and easy to perform. 17,18 A study also showed excellent correlation between Berg Balance Scale and functional reach distance. 19 However, previous research has shown that functional reach distance is not well correlated with COG excursion, 20 implying that functional reach may not serve as a good gauge of dynamic balance.…”