Wayne Dite1, Viviene A Temple. 1. Royal Talbot Rehabilitation Centre, Physiotherapy Department, RMIT University, Faculty of Life Sciences, School of Medical Sciences, Melbourne, Australia. wayne.dite@armc.org.au
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To establish the reliability and validity of a new clinical test of dynamic standing balance, the Four Square Step Test (FSST), to evaluate its sensitivity, specificity, and predictive value in identifying subjects who fall, and to compare it with 3 established balance and mobility tests. DESIGN: A 3-group comparison performed by using 3 validated tests and 1 new test. SETTING: A rehabilitation center and university medical school in Australia. PARTICIPANTS: Eighty-one community-dwelling adults over the age of 65 years. Subjects were age- and gender-matched to form 3 groups: multiple fallers, nonmultiple fallers, and healthy comparisons. INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Time to complete the FSST and Timed Up and Go test and the number of steps to complete the Step Test and Functional Reach Test distance. RESULTS: High reliability was found for interrater (n=30, intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC]=.99) and retest reliability (n=20, ICC=.98). Evidence for validity was found through correlation with other existing balance tests. Validity was supported, with the FSST showing significantly better performance scores (P<.01) for each of the healthier and less impaired groups. The FSST also revealed a sensitivity of 85%, a specificity of 88% to 100%, and a positive predictive value of 86%. CONCLUSION: As a clinical test, the FSST is reliable, valid, easy to score, quick to administer, requires little space, and needs no special equipment. It is unique in that it involves stepping over low objects (2.5cm) and movement in 4 directions. The FSST had higher combined sensitivity and specificity for identifying differences between groups in the selected sample population of older adults than the 3 tests with which it was compared. Copyright 2002 by the American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine and the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
OBJECTIVES: To establish the reliability and validity of a new clinical test of dynamic standing balance, the Four Square Step Test (FSST), to evaluate its sensitivity, specificity, and predictive value in identifying subjects who fall, and to compare it with 3 established balance and mobility tests. DESIGN: A 3-group comparison performed by using 3 validated tests and 1 new test. SETTING: A rehabilitation center and university medical school in Australia. PARTICIPANTS: Eighty-one community-dwelling adults over the age of 65 years. Subjects were age- and gender-matched to form 3 groups: multiple fallers, nonmultiple fallers, and healthy comparisons. INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Time to complete the FSST and Timed Up and Go test and the number of steps to complete the Step Test and Functional Reach Test distance. RESULTS: High reliability was found for interrater (n=30, intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC]=.99) and retest reliability (n=20, ICC=.98). Evidence for validity was found through correlation with other existing balance tests. Validity was supported, with the FSST showing significantly better performance scores (P<.01) for each of the healthier and less impaired groups. The FSST also revealed a sensitivity of 85%, a specificity of 88% to 100%, and a positive predictive value of 86%. CONCLUSION: As a clinical test, the FSST is reliable, valid, easy to score, quick to administer, requires little space, and needs no special equipment. It is unique in that it involves stepping over low objects (2.5cm) and movement in 4 directions. The FSST had higher combined sensitivity and specificity for identifying differences between groups in the selected sample population of older adults than the 3 tests with which it was compared. Copyright 2002 by the American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine and the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
Authors: Poonam K Pardasaney; Pengsheng Ni; Mary D Slavin; Nancy K Latham; Robert C Wagenaar; Jonathan Bean; Alan M Jette Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2014-03-28 Impact factor: 3.966
Authors: M J Boyce; A B McCambridge; L V Bradnam; C G Canning; N Mahant; F C F Chang; V S C Fung; A P Verhagen Journal: J Neural Transm (Vienna) Date: 2021-07-31 Impact factor: 3.575