Reliability of the Adapted Reach Test and Its Comparability to the Functional Reach Test in Community-dwelling Older Adults

Billek-Sawhney, Barbara; Gay, Jacqueline; Wells, Chris; Sheakley, Jennifer; Rank, Sarah

doi:10.1097/00013614-200601000-00011

Cited by 2 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It was noted that the within-sessions interrater reliability was higher than the test-retest reliability in this study across both rulers and for all three measurement types. Other studies have shown similar results (Chang, Lu, & Yu, 1999, Billek-Sawbney, Gay, Wells, Sheakley, & Rank, 2006. This difference was probably due to the research procedures.…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 63%

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

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 63%

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

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A modified forward reach in standing is performed using a manila folder to measure; the patient is not able to reach forward at all, i.e., 0". This measure is not valid, not reliable, and cannot be compared to the traditional functional reach test [1].…”

Section: Patient Descriptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…On the other hand, distributed practice is when the resting amount of time is more than or equal to the amount of trial time. The concept of massed practice differs from conventional therapy [1]. Research by Lang, MacDonald, and Gnip has shown that patients receiving PT after a stroke perform a limited number of exercises and activities during therapy sessions.…”

Section: Variable Manipulatedmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reliability of the Adapted Reach Test and Its Comparability to the Functional Reach Test in Community-dwelling Older Adults

Cited by 2 publications

References 14 publications

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

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

Translating Massed Practice Principles to Promote Skill Acquisition in a Patient with Brain Injury

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About