Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 2,873

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Functional Reach: A New Clinical Measure of Balance

Duncan, P. W., Weiner, D. K., Chandler, J., Studenski, S.·1990·Journal of Gerontology
DOI 10.1093/geronj/45.6.m192
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

A new clinically accessible measure of balance, functional reach (FR), is the difference between arm's length and maximal forward reach, using a fixed base of support. The purposes of this study were to (a) establish FR as a measure of the margin of stability versus the laboratory measure, center of pressure excursion (COPE); (b) test reliability and precision, and (c) determine factors that influence FR, including age and anthropometrics. We evaluated FR in 128 volunteers (age 21-87 years). FR was determined with a precise electronic device and a simple clinical apparatus (yardstick). FR correlates with COPE (Pearson r = .71) and is precise (coefficient of variation = 2.5%) and stable (intraclass correlation coefficient across days = .81). Age and height influence FR. FR is portable, inexpensive, reliable, precise, and a reasonable clinical approximator of the margin of stability. FR may be useful for detecting balance impairment, change in balance performance over time, and in the design of modified environments for impaired older persons.

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/geronj/45.6.m192

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.

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

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Duncan, P. W., Weiner, D. K., Chandler, J., & Studenski, S.
Venue
Journal of Gerontology
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
1990-11-01
Volume
45
Issue
6
Pages
M192-M197
ISSN
0022-1422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1093/geronj/45.6.m192
OpenAlex
W2114808153
Cited by
2,873
References
0
FWCI
27.86
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

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.