OBJECTIVE To systematically review the existing literature on the falls-related diagnostic test properties of the Functional Reach Test (FRT), single-leg stance test (SLST), and Tinetti Performance-Oriented Mobility Assessment (POMA) in older adults across settings and patient populations. METHODS Databases PubMed, EMBASE, and CINAHL were searched (inception–July 2020). Inclusion criteria were an age of 60 years or more for participants, prospectively recorded falls, and the reporting of falls-related predictive validity. Manuscripts not published in English were excluded. Methodological quality of reporting was assessed using the Tooth Scale. RESULTS Of 1071 studies reviewed, 21 met the inclusion criteria (12 POMA, 8 FRT, 6 SLST). Seven studies (58.3%) used a modified version of the POMA (POMA), while 3 (37.5%) used a modified FRT (FRT). For the outcome of any fall, the respective ranges of sensitivity and specificity were 0.076 to 0.615 and 0.695 to 0.97 for the POMA, 0.27 to 0.70 and 0.52 to 0.83 for the modified POMA, 0.73 and 0.88 for the FRT, 0.47 to 0.682 and 0.59 to 0.788 for the modified FRT, and 0.51 and 0.61 for the SLST in community-dwelling older adults. For the SLST, the sensitivity and specificity for recurrent falls in the community-dwelling setting were 0.33 and 0.712, respectively. CONCLUSIONS All the clinical tests of balance demonstrated an overall low diagnostic accuracy and a consistent inability to correctly identify fallers. None of these tests individually are able to predict future falls in older adults. Future research should develop a better understanding of the role that clinical tests of balance play in the comprehensive assessment of falls risk in older adults. IMPACT Neither the FRT, SLST, or POMA alone show consistent evidence of being able to correctly identify fallers across fall types, settings, or older adult subpopulations. These clinical tests of balance cannot substitute a comprehensive falls risk assessment, thus should be incorporated in practice solely to identify and track balance impairment in older adults.

Background:Cognitive deficits and gait problems are common and progressive in Alzheimer’s disease (AD). Prescription of a 4-wheeled walker is a common intervention to improve stability and independence, yet can be associated with an increased falls risk.Objectives:1) To examine changes in spatial-temporal gait parameters while using a 4-wheeled walker under different walking conditions, and 2) to determine the cognitive and gait task costs of walking with the aid in adults with AD and healthy older adults.Methods:Twenty participants with AD (age 79.1±7.1 years) and 22 controls (age 68.5±10.7 years) walked using a 4-wheeled walker in a straight (6 m) and Figure of 8 path under three task conditions: single-task (no aid), dual-task (walking with aid), and multi-task (walking with aid while counting backwards by ones).Results:Gait velocity was statistically slower in adults with AD than the controls across all conditions (all p values <0.025). Stride time variability was significantly different between groups for straight path single task (p = 0.045), straight path multi-task (p = 0.031), and Figure of 8 multi-task (0.036). Gait and cognitive task costs increased while multi-tasking, with performance decrement greater for people with AD. None of the people with AD self-prioritized gait over the cognitive task while walking in a straight path, yet 75% were able to shift prioritization to gait in the complex walking path.Conclusion:Learning to use a 4-wheeled walker is cognitively demanding and any additional tasks increases the demands, further adversely affecting gait. The increased cognitive demands result in a decrease in gait velocity that is greatest in adults with AD. Future research needs to investigate the effects of mobility aid training on gait performance.

No abstract

Background: Clinicians use the Activities-specific Balance Confidence Scale to understand balance confidence. A short-form Activities-specific Balance Confidence scale, was developed using the six most difficult tasks from the original Activities-specific Balance Confidence scale; however, short-form the short-form scale psychometrics and agreement with the original scale have yet to be explored in people with lower extremity amputations. Objective: To determine the relative and absolute reliability, construct validity, and agreement of the short-form Activities-specific Balance Confidence scale. Study design: Test–retest with a 2-week interval. Methods: Analysis for relative reliability and internal consistency was intraclass correlation coefficient and Cronbach’s α, respectively. Absolute reliability was measured using standard error of measurement and minimal detectable change. Bland–Altman plots measured agreement between scales. Construct validity was evaluated against the L Test using a Pearson-product moment correlation. Results: The short-form Activities-specific Balance Confidence (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.92) and Activities-specific Balance Confidence (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.91) scales had excellent relative reliability. Both scales demonstrated good internal consistency. Worse absolute reliability was observed in the short-form Activities-specific Balance Confidence scale. Construct validity against the L Test was confirmed. Bland–Altman plots indicated poor agreement between scales. Conclusion: Both scales exhibit excellent relative reliability and good internal consistency and construct validity. Poor agreement between short-form Activities-specific Balance Confidence and Activities-specific Balance Confidence indicates the scales should not be used interchangeably. Inadequate absolute reliability of the short-form Activities-specific Balance Confidence scale suggests the Activities-specific Balance Confidence should be the balance confidence scale of choice. Clinical relevance: Balance confidence is an important metric for our understanding of rehabilitation and community re-integration in people with lower extremity amputations. Due to inferior absolute reliability and a lack of appropriate items composing the short-form Activities-specific Balance Confidence scale, the full-scale Activities-specific Balance Confidence is recommended for the assessment of balance confidence in this population.

No abstract