S M Lynch1, P Leahy, S P Barker. 1. Brain Injury Rehabilitation Unit, St Mary's Hospital, Rochester, NY, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The primary purpose of this study was to determine whether the Functional Reach Test (FRT) could be modified to provide reliable measurements of sitting balance. A secondary purpose was to determine whether the test could be used to measure differences among levels of spinal cord injury. SUBJECTS: Thirty male subjects with spinal cord injuries were divided into into three groups based on injury type. Group 1 consisted of subjects with C5-6 tetraplegia, group 2 consisted of subjects with T1-4 paraplegia, and group 3 consisted of subjects with T10-12 paraplegia. METHODS: Subjects sat on similar mat tables (tables varied based on what was available at a given clinic) against the same backboard, set at 80 degrees. During two sessions, forward reach was measured with a yardstick, with a 10-minute break between sessions. RESULTS: Intraclass correlation coefficients (3,2) were high and varied from .85 to .94. Post hoc testing revealed that differences occurred between groups 1 and 3 and groups 2 and 3, but not between groups 1 and 2. CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION: Test-retest reliability was high with modification of the FRT with a single rater. The measurements reflected differences among levels of lesion. Further study is needed to determine normal values for all levels of lesion, relationships to functional outcomes, and effects of equipment on sitting balance. The modified FRT appears to provide reliable measurements of sitting balance in nonstanding persons with spinal cord injuries.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The primary purpose of this study was to determine whether the Functional Reach Test (FRT) could be modified to provide reliable measurements of sitting balance. A secondary purpose was to determine whether the test could be used to measure differences among levels of spinal cord injury. SUBJECTS: Thirty male subjects with spinal cord injuries were divided into into three groups based on injury type. Group 1 consisted of subjects with C5-6 tetraplegia, group 2 consisted of subjects with T1-4 paraplegia, and group 3 consisted of subjects with T10-12 paraplegia. METHODS: Subjects sat on similar mat tables (tables varied based on what was available at a given clinic) against the same backboard, set at 80 degrees. During two sessions, forward reach was measured with a yardstick, with a 10-minute break between sessions. RESULTS: Intraclass correlation coefficients (3,2) were high and varied from .85 to .94. Post hoc testing revealed that differences occurred between groups 1 and 3 and groups 2 and 3, but not between groups 1 and 2. CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION: Test-retest reliability was high with modification of the FRT with a single rater. The measurements reflected differences among levels of lesion. Further study is needed to determine normal values for all levels of lesion, relationships to functional outcomes, and effects of equipment on sitting balance. The modified FRT appears to provide reliable measurements of sitting balance in nonstanding persons with spinal cord injuries.