Relationship of Functional Reach Test scores and falls in Special Olympics athletes.
The Functional Reach Test misses most fallers in Special Olympics athletes, so swap it for a better balance tool.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Researchers gave the Functional Reach Test to 272 Special Olympics athletes. They wanted to see if low scores could flag who would fall later.
They tracked falls for a set time. Then they checked if the test caught the real fallers.
What they found
The test missed most fallers. It found only 28 out of every 100 athletes who later fell.
In plain words, the Functional Reach Test is a poor screener for fall risk in this group.
How this fits with other research
Kleinert et al. (2007) already warned that classic balance tests flop in adults with profound ID. The new data now show the flop extends to Special Olympics athletes.
Hattier et al. (2011) found the modified Berg Balance Scale works well in severe ID. Together these papers point you away from the Functional Reach Test and toward the Berg or video-based gait checks.
Rahaman et al. (2024) remind us to weigh sensitivity numbers before picking any tool. The 28.8 % rate here fits their table of "low-sensitivity" methods.
Why it matters
If you screen athletes with ID for balance problems, skip the Functional Reach Test. Use the modified Berg or watch how they walk and turn. Better tools mean fewer missed fallers and safer sport plans.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Try the modified Berg Balance Scale or video gait check instead of the Functional Reach Test at your next athlete screening.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
BACKGROUND: The Functional Reach Test is used to assess balance of Special Olympic athletes as part of the FUNfitness screens held at Special Olympics games. However, it is unknown if the Functional Reach Test is an accurate assessment of balance in this population. The objective of this study was to explore the relationship between Functional Reach Test scores and falls in Special Olympic athletes. METHODS: Data were collected as a part of the FUNfitness screens during Arizona Special Olympics games. The Functional Reach Test scores of 272 Special Olympic athletes were recorded. Athletes were asked to report the number of falls they experienced in the last 12 months. RESULTS: A two-tailed Kendall tau test revealed little to no relationship between number of falls and Functional Reach Test scores of either the left upper extremity (n = 263, τ = -0.063, P = 0.202) or the right upper extremity (n = 263, τ = -0.107, P = 0.030). Sensitivity of the Functional Reach Test to identify fallers was 28.8%, and specificity was 83.5%. CONCLUSIONS: Scores of the Functional Reach Test did not correlate with actual falls. The relatively high specificity indicates the assessment is good at identifying non-fallers, while the low sensitivity results in a high number of fallers not being recognised as such. Therefore, the cut-off scores used for the Functional Reach Test in FUNfitness screenings may need to be altered to more accurately identify balance deficits in this population. FUNfitness screens need to be quick, efficient and accurate. As such, selection of the most appropriate assessment tools is essential. Consideration should be given on how to make the Functional Reach Test the most beneficial as a FUNfitness screen.
Journal of intellectual disability research : JIDR, 2019 · doi:10.1111/jir.12600