The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The comparative ability of eight functional mobility tests for predicting falls in community-dwelling older people
Abstract
BACKGROUND: numerous tests have been suggested as fall risk indicators. However, the validity of these assessments has not been demonstrated in large representative samples of community-dwelling older people. OBJECTIVE: the objective of this study was to examine the comparative ability and clinical utility of eight mobility tests for predicting multiple falls in older community-dwelling people. METHODS: design--prospective cohort study; subjects--362 subjects aged 74-98 years; measurements--the sit-to-stand test with one and five repetitions, the pick-up-weight test, the half-turn test, the alternate-step test (AST), the six-metre-walk test (SMWT) and stair ascent and descent tasks. Falls were monitored for 1 year with fall calendars. RESULTS: in the 12-month follow-up period, 80 subjects (22.1%) suffered two or more falls. Multiple fallers performed significantly worse than non-multiple fallers in the sit-to-stand test with five repetitions (STS-5), the AST, the half-turn test, the SMWT and the stair-descent test. When dichotomised using cut-off points from receiver-operated characteristics (ROC) curve analyses, these tests demonstrated reasonable sensitivity and specificity in identifying multiple fallers. A principal components analysis identified only one factor underlying the mobility tests. Poor performances in two mobility tests, however, increased the risk of multiple falls more than poor performance in one test alone (ORs = 3.66, 95% CI = 1.44, 9.27 and 1.61, 95% CI = 0.62, 4.16 respectively). CONCLUSIONS: the mobility tests appear to be measuring a similar 'mobility' construct. Based on feasibility and predictive validity, the AST, STS-5 and SMWTs were the best tests.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability.
Shrout, P. E., & Fleiss, J. L. (1979) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.86.2.420 · Cited by 24,532
The Timed “Up & Go”: A Test of Basic Functional Mobility for Frail Elderly Persons
Podsiadlo, D., & Richardson, S. (1991) · Journal of the American Geriatrics Society · doi:10.1111/j.1532-5415.1991.tb01616.x · Cited by 14,418
Guralnik, J. M., Simonsick, E. M., Ferrucci, L., Glynn, R. J., Berkman, L. F., Blazer, D. G., Scherr, P. A., & Wallace, R. B. (1994) · Journal of Gerontology · doi:10.1093/geronj/49.2.m85 · Cited by 9,792
Cited by
Lusardi, M. M., Fritz, S., Middleton, A., Allison, L., Wingood, M., Phillips, E., Criss, M., Verma, S., Osborne, J., & Chui, K. K. (2017) · Journal of Geriatric Physical Therapy · doi:10.1519/jpt.0000000000000099 · Cited by 566
Schoene, D., Lord, S. R., Delbaere, K., Severino, C., Davies, T. A., & Smith, S. T. (2013) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0057734 · Cited by 274
Self-citationYoukhana, S., Dean, C. M., Wolff, M., Sherrington, C., & Tiedemann, A. (2016) · Age and Ageing · doi:10.1093/ageing/afv175 · Cited by 149
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Tiedemann, A., Shimada, H., Sherrington, C., Murray, S., & Lord, S.
- Venue
- Age and Ageing
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2008-05-16
- Volume
- 37
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 430-435
- ISSN
- 0002-0729 (ISSN-L)
- 1468-2834
- OpenAlex
- W2157181624
- Cited by
- 548
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 47.54
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: The comparative ability of eight functional mobility tests for predicting falls in community-dwelling older people. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/ageing/afn100
- The paper
- Tiedemann, A., Shimada, H., Sherrington, C., Murray, S., & Lord, S. (2008). The comparative ability of eight functional mobility tests for predicting falls in community-dwelling older people. Age and Ageing. https://doi.org/10.1093/ageing/afn100
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.