Skip Navigation


Age and Ageing Advance Access originally published online on May 16, 2008
Age and Ageing 2008 37(4):430-435; doi:10.1093/ageing/afn100
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Supplementary Data
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
37/4/430    most recent
afn100v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Tiedemann, A.
Right arrow Articles by Lord, S.
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Tiedemann, A.
Right arrow Articles by Lord, S.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Copyright © The Author 2008. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Geriatrics Society.

The comparative ability of eight functional mobility tests for predicting falls in community-dwelling older people

Anne Tiedemann1, Hiroyuki Shimada2, Catherine Sherrington1, Susan Murray1 and Stephen Lord2

1 Prince of Wales Medical Research Institute, Barker St, Randwick NSW 2031, Australia
2 Tokyo Metropolitan Institute of Gerontology, 35-2 Sakae-cho, Itabashi-ku, Tokyo 173-0015, Japan

Address correspondence to: A. Tiedemann. Tel: (+61) 2 9399 1060; Fax: (+61) 2 9399 1005. Email: a.tiedemann{at}powmri.edu.au

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.

Keywords: accidental falls, mobility tests, mobility, balance, aged, elderly

Received 28 January 2008; accepted in revised form 5 February 2008.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.