Nontarget- and Target-oriented Functional Reach Among Older Adults at Risk for Falls

Abstract

Background: Functional reach is a tool commonly used to assess an individual's risk for falls. On occasion, clinicians substitute the use of a target during functional reach for the original nontarget task. The purpose of this study was to compare target-oriented and nontarget-oriented functional reach scores among a sample of older adults at risk for falling. Methods: Sixty-five volunteers (≥65 years) with an average nontarget-oriented functional reach of less than 7 inches participated in this study. Three trials of nontarget-oriented functional reach (FR) were performed using the standard method. An average of these trials was calculated. Subjects then performed the target-oriented functional reach (TOFR) task. The TOFR task was repeated at increasing distances until the subject violated test conditions. A paired samples t-test and Pearson correlation were used to compare average FR and final TOFR scores. Results: The FR scores (4.5 ± 2.0 inches) and TOFR scores (7.8 ± 2.2 inches) were significantly different (t64=-15.2, p<.001) and moderately correlated (r=.65, p<.001). Conclusions: The findings of this study indicate that target-and nontarget-oriented functional reach scores of elders at risk for falls are different in magnitude but correlated. Consequently, the results of these two methods of testing are not interchangeable. They do, however, appear to be measuring balance as an underlying common construct.