Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 263

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 25 of the 25 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Validity of the Multi-Directional Reach Test: A Practical Measure for Limits of Stability in Older Adults

Newton, R. A.·2001·The Journals of Gerontology Series A: Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Falls occur not only in the forward direction, but also to the side and backward. The purpose of this study was to develop a portable and valid tool to measure limits of stability in the anterior-posterior and medial-lateral directions. METHODS: Two hundred fifty-four community-dwelling older persons were administered the Berg Balance Test (BBT), the Timed Up & Go Test (TUG), and the Multi-Directional Reach Test (MDRT). For the MDRT, subjects performed maximal reaches with the outstretched arm forward (FR), to the right (RR), to the left (LR), and leaning backward (BR), with feet flat on the floor. Reach was measured by the subject's total hand excursion along a yardstick affixed to a telescoping tripod. RESULTS: Mean scores on the MDRT were FR = 8.89 +/- 3.4 in., BR = 4.64 +/- 3.07 in., RR = 6.15 +/- 2.99 in., and LR = 6.61 +/- 2.88 in. Interclass Correlation (ICC2,1) for the reaches were greater than.92. Reliability analysis (Cronbach's Alpha,.842) demonstrated that directional reaches measure similar but unique aspects of the MDRT. The MDRT demonstrated significant correlation with the BBT sum and significant inverse relationship with the scores on the TUG. Regression analysis revealed that activity level contributed to scores in the forward, right, and left direction and that fear of falling contributed to scores in the backward direction. CONCLUSION: The Multi-Directional Reach Test is an inexpensive, reliable, and valid tool for measuring the limits of stability as derived by reach in four directions. Values obtained on relatively healthy community-dwelling older adults serve as norms for screening patient populations.

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 · 10.1093/gerona/56.4.m248

Cites

25 of 25 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 25 references

Cited by

See all 263

Metadata

Authors
Newton, R. A.
Venue
The Journals of Gerontology Series A: Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences
Published
2001-04-01
Volume
56
Issue
4
Pages
M248-M252
ISSN
  • 1079-5006 (ISSN-L)
  • 1758-535X
OpenAlex
W2117837066
Cited by
263
References
25
FWCI
9.29
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: Validity of the Multi-Directional Reach Test: A Practical Measure for Limits of Stability in Older Adults. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/gerona/56.4.m248
The paper
Newton, R. A. (2001). Validity of the Multi-Directional Reach Test: A Practical Measure for Limits of Stability in Older Adults. The Journals of Gerontology Series A: Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1093/gerona/56.4.m248

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.