Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 260

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 102 of the 102 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Using the Systems Framework for Postural Control to Analyze the Components of Balance Evaluated in Standardized Balance Measures: A Scoping Review

Open access
Sibley, Kathryn M., Beauchamp, Marla K., Van Ooteghem, Karen, Straus, Sharon E., Jaglal, Susan B.·2015·Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To identify components of postural control included in standardized balance measures for adult populations. DATA SOURCES: Electronic searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL databases using keyword combinations of postural balance/equilibrium, psychometrics/reproducibility of results/predictive value of tests/validation studies, instrument construction/instrument validation, geriatric assessment/disability evaluation, gray literature, and hand searches. STUDY SELECTION: Inclusion criteria were measures with a stated objective to assess balance, adult populations (18y and older), at least 1 psychometric evaluation, 1 standing task, a standardized protocol and evaluation criteria, and published in English. Two reviewers independently identified studies for inclusion. Sixty-six measures were included. DATA EXTRACTION: A research assistant extracted descriptive characteristics and 2 reviewers independently coded components of balance in each measure using the Systems Framework for Postural Control, a widely recognized model of balance. DATA SYNTHESIS: Components of balance evaluated in these measures were underlying motor systems (100% of measures), anticipatory postural control (71%), dynamic stability (67%), static stability (64%), sensory integration (48%), functional stability limits (27%), reactive postural control (23%), cognitive influences (17%), and verticality (8%). Thirty-four measures evaluated 3 or fewer components of balance, and 1 measure-the Balance Evaluation Systems Test-evaluated all components of balance. CONCLUSIONS: Several standardized balance measures provide only partial information on postural control and omit important components of balance related to avoiding falls. As such, the choice of measure(s) may limit the overall interpretation of an individual's balance ability. Continued work is necessary to increase the implementation of comprehensive balance assessment in research and practice.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.apmr.2014.06.021

Cites

102 of 102 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 102 references

Cited by

See all 260

Metadata

Authors
Sibley, K. M., Beauchamp, M. K., Van Ooteghem, K., Straus, S. E., & Jaglal, S. B.
Venue
Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2015-01
Volume
96
Issue
1
Pages
122-132.e29
ISSN
0003-9993 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2035755824
Cited by
260
References
102
FWCI
26.19
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Using the Systems Framework for Postural Control to Analyze the Components of Balance Evaluated in Standardized Balance Measures: A Scoping Review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.apmr.2014.06.021
The paper
Sibley, K. M., Beauchamp, M. K., Van Ooteghem, K., Straus, S. E., & Jaglal, S. B. (2015). Using the Systems Framework for Postural Control to Analyze the Components of Balance Evaluated in Standardized Balance Measures: A Scoping Review. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2014.06.021

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.