HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when Rapid Responses are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Mecagni, C. Articles by O'Sullivan, S. B Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Mecagni, C. Articles by O'Sullivan, S. B Related Collections Balance Tests and Measurements Geriatrics: Other Social Bookmarking                      What's this?

Balance and Ankle Range of Motion in Community-Dwelling Women Aged 64 to 87 Years: A Correlational Study

C Mecagni, PT, MSPT, is Physical Therapist, Fairlawn Rehabilitation Hospital, Worcester, Mass
JP Smith, PT, MSPT, is Physical Therapist, Brown Schools Rehabilitation Center, Austin, Tex. Address all correspondence to Ms Smith at 4512 Avenue B, Austin, TX 78751 (USA) (jpsbos7{at}aol.com)
KE Roberts, PT, MSPT, is Physical Therapist, Beverly Rehabilitation, East Village Nursing Home, Lexington, Mass; Elmhurst Nursing Home, Melrose, Mass; and Dexter House, Malden, Mass
SB O'Sullivan, PT, EdD, is Professor, Department of Physical Therapy, University of Massachusetts–Lowell, Lowell, Mass

Submitted December 30, 1999; Accepted May 30, 2000

	Abstract

 
Background and Purpose. This study investigated the relationship between balance measures and ankle range of motion (ROM) in community-dwelling elderly women with no health problems. Identification of modifiable factors associated with balance may enable clinicians to design treatments to help reduce the risk of falls in elderly people. Subjects. The sample consisted of 34 women between the ages of 64 and 87 years (=74.7, SD=6.0). Methods. Goniometry was used to determine bilateral ankle active-assistive range of motion (AAROM) and passive range of motion. Balance capabilities were measured with the Functional Reach Test (FRT) and the Tinetti Performance-Oriented Mobility Assessment (POMA). Balance data for the FRT, POMA balance subtest, POMA gait subtest, and POMA total score were correlated with ankle ROM using the Pearson product moment correlation coefficient (PCC). Results. Correlations between ROM and balance scores were found, ranging from .29 to .63. The POMA gait subtest and FRT resulted in higher correlations with ROM than did the POMA balance subtest (left total AAROM PCC=.63, .51, and .31). Correlations using composite ankle ROM scores were higher than individual motions. The strongest correlation existed between bilateral, total ankle AAROM and the POMA gait subtest scores (PCC=.63) Conclusion and Discussion. Correlations exist between ankle ROM and balance in community-dwelling elderly women. Additional research is needed to determine whether treatment directed at increasing ankle ROM can improve balance.

Key Words: Ankle range of motion • Balance • Elderly women

	Introduction

Top Abstract Introduction Method Results Discussion Conclusion References

 
According to Hornbrook et al,¹ fall prevention depends on a clear understanding of the risk factors associated with falls. Falls result from many factors, including both extrinsic or environmental factors and intrinsic factors, such as deficits in sensory, cognitive, central integrative, and musculoskeletal abilities.^2–6 Although some falls may have a single cause, most falls are believed to result from a combination of factors.⁷ Not all risks can be eliminated, but Speechley and Tinetti⁴ contend that the modification of even one risk factor can be a worthwhile therapeutic goal, even for people with multiple problems.

Among elderly people, decreased force production in the lower extremities has also been identified as a potential risk factor in those who fall when compared with those who do not fall,^8–10 with the greatest compromise in ankle dorsiflexion force.⁸ The Frailty and Injuries: Cooperative Studies of Intervention Techniques (FICSIT) trials assessed the effects of interventions in reducing falls among elderly people.^11,12 The exercise interventions incorporated resistance, balance, endurance, and flexibility.¹³ Data from trials were analyzed with an individual patient data meta-analysis strategy, planned at the beginning of the FICSIT, combining the evidence from the different trials. Interventions that included flexibility training showed a reduced falls incidence ratio of 0.93.¹¹ The incidence ratio reflects the relative change in risk to falling in the treatment group.¹¹ More specifically, decreased ankle range of motion (ROM) may be a risk factor associated with decreased balance.^14–16 A certain amount of ankle ROM is needed for functional activities such as walking, which requires a minimum of 10 degrees of dorsiflexion.^17,18

Range of motion tends to decline throughout the life span due to age-related changes in the mechanical properties and morphology of joint structures (eg, there are decreases in ankle ROM in plantar flexion, dorsiflexion, inversion, and eversion).^19–21 Although elderly men and women without health problems demonstrate large changes in ankle ROM, women show greater age-related declines than men do.¹⁹ We believe that decreased ankle ROM may require altered movement patterns, and these altered movement patterns may compromise balance, thus limiting functional activities such as ambulation. Furthermore, decreases in postural control may result from the use of motions at the hip or trunk that are required to compensate for restrictions in motion at the ankle.²²

The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between balance and ankle ROM in community-dwelling, elderly women. These results may serve in clarifying specific components to incorporate into future intervention studies for reducing falls in elderly people.

	Method

Top Abstract Introduction Method Results Discussion Conclusion References

 
Subjects

Subjects were recruited from a local senior center through a variety of channels, including the local cable television station, local newspapers, the senior newsletter, posters, fliers, and personal visits to luncheons and activities to describe the purpose of the study. The study design incorporated community service components, including an educational seminar and literature regarding balance, fall prevention, and home safety. Subjects who participated in the study were offered individualized feedback on their scores for balance and ankle ROM, and, if appropriate, simple stretches were demonstrated to improve ankle ROM.

The sample consisted of 34 Caucasian, community-dwelling women with a mean age of 74.7 years (range=64–87). About half of the subjects ranked fall prevention as at least 8 (out of 10) in importance in their daily routine. Twenty-two participants (65%) reported a fall over the past 3 years. Of those who had fallen, 13 participants (59%) reported a single fall caused by a specific event and 9 participants (41%) reported multiple falls.

Instrumentation

The Functional Reach Test (FRT) and the Tinetti Performance-Oriented Mobility Assessment (POMA) were used as measures of balance. The FRT evaluates the maximal distance that a person can reach forward while maintaining a fixed base of support.^23–25 Previous research has established the reliability of measurements obtained with this test from 128 volunteers from 21 to 87 years of age (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC]=.92).²⁶ The POMA has 2 subtests. The balance subtest requires an individual to perform balance maneuvers such as sitting, moving from a sitting position to a standing position, standing with eyes closed, and turning 360 degrees. The gait subtest requires an individual to ambulate at a "usual" pace and at a "rapid, but safe" pace. Scores on this assessment categorize individuals as having a "low risk for falling," "greater chance of falling," or "high risk for falling."²³ Tinetti²⁷ reported agreement on more than 85% of the individual items, with the total score never differing by greater than 10%.

Measurements of dorsiflexion and plantar flexion were obtained with a 360-degree Baseline diagnostic goniometer,^* and measurements for eversion and inversion were made with a modified pocket 360-degree goniometer. Both goniometers were calibrated in 1-degree increments.

Reliability

Reliability for the FRT, the POMA, and goniometry was established in a pilot study of 8 subjects. To determine intrarater reliability for the FRT, one tester took 2 measurements (ICC=.96). Interrater reliability for the POMA was determined for 2 testers independently (ICC=.97). Intrarater reliability of goniometric measurements was determined for ROM during the pilot study by taking 2 independent measurements for each motion with the calibrated side of the goniometer shielded from the tester's view (dorsiflexion ICC=.97, plantar-flexion ICC=.99, inversion ICC=.93, and ever-sion ICC=.94). Goniometric measurements of dorsiflexion, plantar flexion, inversion, and eversion can be reliably determined, with established ICCs of .92, .96, .74, .75, respectively.^28,29

Procedure

Prior to testing, the purpose and procedures of the study were explained to the subjects. Each subject was asked to read and sign an informed consent form. The tester asked the subject general health questions and administered a foot and ankle examination to determine eligibility. Exclusion criteria were based on a reported history of stroke, vestibular disorders, other neurological problems, uncorrected visual problems, heart attack, uncontrolled hypertension, severe ankle edema, abnormal sensation in lower extremities, foot abnormalities, leg-length discrepancy, or a grade of less than Fair (3) on manual muscle testing of the ankle. Of the 43 women who volunteered for the study, 9 were excluded. After testing, general fall-related questions were asked.

The tester then administered the FRT according to the procedure described by the test developers.²⁶ At a second station, 2 testers assessed bilateral ankle passive range of motion (PROM) and active-assistive range of motion (AAROM). The method used to measure PROM is outlined in Measurement of Joint Motion: A Guide to Goniometry by Norkin and White³⁰ and has been described by previous researchers.^28,29,31 For AAROM, the subject was then asked to actively assist the movement while the tester maintained pressure in the direction of the motion and proper alignment.

The 2-tester procedure included one tester aligning the goniometer according to the bony landmarks specified in Norkin and White's textbook,³⁰ measuring the beginning and ending positions, and recording the result. The second tester provided stabilization and moved the subject's ankle to the firm end-feel. Dorsiflexion and plantar-flexion measurements were first taken with the subject positioned supine with the knee extended. Dorsiflexion, plantar flexion, eversion, and inversion were measured with the subject's knees flexed and feet unsupported.

At the third station, the POMA was administered by reading instructions from a script. Scores were based on a point system related to normal, adaptive, or abnormal responses.²⁷ Two testers independently scored the subject's performance on each subtest. The subject was asked to perform the POMA gait subtest twice in order for the testers to change positions for scoring the performance from the side, front, and back of the subject.

Data Analysis

Ankle ROM data were considered in combination similar to the ROM, force, torque, and power scores discussed in previous research.^89,32 Four levels, as defined in Figure 1, were considered: (1) unilateral, individual ROM, (2) bilateral, individual ROM, (3) bilateral, planar ROM in the sagittal (dorsiflexion and plantar flexion) and frontal (eversion and inversion) planes, and (4) bilateral, total ankle ROM. Unilateral, total ROM data were also examined. Each of these conditions was correlated with the balance measurement data for the FRT, the POMA balance subtest, the POMA gait subtest, and the POMA total score. The Pearson product moment correlation coefficient (PCC) was used to calculate correlations, using Statistix 1996 software.

View larger version (27K): [in this window] [in a new window] Figure 1. Levels of correlation based on combinations of range-of-motion data. ROM=range of motion, DF=dorsiflexion, PF=plantar flexion, INV=inversion, EV=eversion.

	Results

Top Abstract Introduction Method Results Discussion Conclusion References

 
Functional Reach

The mean FRT score for our sample was 22.1 cm (SD=7.1) (8.7 in [SD=2.8]) (range=9.53–34.93 cm [3.75–13.75 in]), which is within 1 standard deviation of published normative data for women between the ages of 70 and 87 years. Six subjects had an FRT score below 15.2 cm (6 in), which is considered to be indicative of a much greater fall risk.²⁵

Performance-Oriented Mobility Assessment

The mean POMA score was 22.8/28 (SD=2.5, range=18–27), with a mean on the balance subtest of 12.6/16 (SD=1.7, range=9–15) and a mean on the gait subtest of 10.2/12 (SD=1.1, range=8–12). Two subjects scored below 19, which has been established as "high risk for falling."³⁴ Twenty-three subjects scored between 19 and 24, which is in the category of "a greater chance of falling."³⁴ Nine subjects scored over 24 (ie, "low risk for falling"³⁴).

Goniometry

The means and standard deviations for each motion are summarized in the Table.

View larger version (48K): [in this window] [in a new window] Figure 2. Pearson product moment correlations between bilateral individual motions and Performance-Oriented Mobility Assessment (POMA)27 gait subtest scores with knee flexed (df=32, N=34). INV=inversion, DF=dorsiflexion, PF=plantar flexion, EV=eversion. (With knee extended, r =.40 for DF and r =.35 for PF.)

View larger version (58K): [in this window] [in a new window] Figure 4. Pearson product moment correlations between bilateral individual motions and Functional Reach Test28 scores with knee flexed (df=32, N=34). INV=inversion, DF=dorsiflexion, PF=plantar flexion, EV=eversion. (With knee extended, r =.47 for DF and r =.16 for PF.)

View larger version (22K): [in this window] [in a new window] Figure 5. Pearson product moment correlation values for relationship between Performance-Oriented Mobility Assessment (POMA)27 gait subtest scores and levels of range-of-motion data (df=32, N=34). INV=inversion, DF=dorsiflexion, PF=plantar flexion, EV=eversion.

View larger version (23K): [in this window] [in a new window] Figure 7. Pearson product moment correlation values for relationship between Performance-Oriented Mobility Assessment (POMA)27 balance subtest scores and levels of range-of-motion data (df=32, N=34). INV=inversion, DF=dorsiflexion, PF=plantar flexion, EV=eversion.

	Discussion

Top Abstract Introduction Method Results Discussion Conclusion References

We collected ROM data with the subjects in both knee-flexed and knee-extended positions because we believed that both positions are used in functional situations that challenge balance. Correlations exist between balance measures and ankle ROM in knee-flexed and knee-extended positions, with stronger relationships for the knee-flexed data. If a short gastrocnemius muscle length was the major cause of decreased ankle ROM, we might expect knee-extended positions to produce a higher correlation. This finding may indicate that a short gastrocnemius muscle length may not be the main factor contributing to decreased ankle ROM and to decreases in our balance measurements. Our data suggest to us that the decreased performance on balance measures associated with restricted ankle motion may be due to noncontractile tissues such as capsule, ligaments, or bone, rather than to a short gastrocnemius muscle length. We believe that future studies should assess the impact of articulatory techniques, such as joint mobilizations, and specific stretching on improvements in ankle ROM and balance. We collected ROM data for both right and left ankles of each subject, although differences in average ROM values between right and left ankles are not thought to exist in elderly individuals.³⁶

The importance of specific ankle motions to balance varied with the balance assessment tool. The POMA gait subtest and the FRT resulted in a greater number of correlations with ROM than the POMA balance subtest (Figs. 2–4). These results indicate that ankle ROM may be more associated with balance during ambulation and forward reaching tasks of everyday life than activities performed in the POMA balance subtest. The POMA gait subtest had a moderate correlation with inversion (r=.50) and mild correlations with dorsiflexion (knee flexion: r=.44, knee extension: r=.40), plantar flexion (knee flexion: r=.42, knee extension: r=.35), and ever-sion (r=.32) (Fig. 3). These results may indicate that all ankle motions contribute to the maintenance of balance during gait.

View larger version (61K): [in this window] [in a new window] Figure 3. Pearson product moment correlations between bilateral individual motions and Performance-Oriented Mobility Assessment (POMA)27 balance subtest scores with knee flexed (df=32, N=34). INV=inversion, DF=dorsiflexion, PF=plantar flexion, EV=eversion. (With knee extended, r =.37 for DF and r =.12 for PF.)

View larger version (25K): [in this window] [in a new window] Figure 6. Pearson product moment correlation values for relationship between Functional Reach Test28 scores and levels of range-of-motion data (df=32, N=34). INV=inversion, DF=dorsiflexion, PF=plantar flexion, EV=eversion.

Bilateral, total ankle ROM correlated more strongly with the POMA gait subtest scores than unilateral ROM, suggesting that the impact of 2 restricted ankles on balance will be greater than the impact of only 1 restricted ankle.

The highest correlation in our study existed between bilateral, total ankle AAROM and the POMA gait subtest scores, with a correlation coefficient of .63 (Fig. 5). This result attributes 40% of the variability in balance capabilities to ankle ROM. Bilateral, total AAROM was correlated with FRT scores, with a correlation coefficient of .51 (Fig. 6). This result attributes 26% of the variability in balance performance to ankle ROM while forward reaching. The correlation coefficient for the relationship between POMA balance subtest scores and bilateral, total AAROM was .31 (Fig. 7), indicating that ankle ROM may be responsible for 9.6% of the balance capabilities during this test. These results suggest that AAROM of the ankle appears to be an important factor influencing balance during gait.

The low common variance found between ankle ROM measurements and the POMA balance subtest scores indicates to us that ankle ROM may be relatively less important in these activities. During the maneuvers of the POMA balance subtest, including sitting, standing, and standing with eyes closed, other factors may be more critical in influencing balance, but our study was correlational and interventions were outside the scope of this study.

	Conclusion

Top Abstract Introduction Method Results Discussion Conclusion References

 
We found that a relationship exists between ankle ROM and performance on balance tests in community-dwelling elderly women with no health problems. Ankle exercises directed at increasing ankle ROM may increase the effectiveness of clinical and community interventions designed for improving balance and reducing falls in elderly women. Our results can provide information to those developing interventions and investigating treatment efficacy because they suggest that interventions for increasing ankle ROM may have an influence on reducing falls in this population.

	Footnotes

 
All authors provided concept/research design and data analysis. Ms Mecagni, Ms Smith, and Ms Roberts provided writing, and Dr Sullivan provided editing and project management. Ms Mecagni, Ms Smith, and Ms Roberts provided data collection, subjects, and provision of facilities/equipment. Ms Mecagni, Ms Smith, Ms Roberts, Paul D Smith, and Richard McLaughlin provided clerical support. Ms Mecagni, Ms Smith, Ms Roberts, and Jay Pulliam provided consultation (including review of manuscript before submission). The authors acknowledge the Chelmsford Senior Center and the Billerica Senior Center for provision of subjects and facilities/equipment, and they especially thank the women who participated in this study.

This study was approved by the University of Massachusetts–Lowell Institutional Human Subjects Review Board.

This research was completed in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Master of Science in Physical Therapy degree for Ms Mecagni, Ms Smith, and Ms Roberts.

The project was presented by Ms Mecagni and Ms Smith as a poster on October 31, 1998, at the Southern New England 1998 Annual Conference and Exposition (Conn, Mass, RI).

^* Fabrication Enterprises, Trent Building, S Buckout St, Irvington NY 10533.

Analytical Software, PO Box 12185, Tallahassee, FL 32317-2185.

	References

Top Abstract Introduction Method Results Discussion Conclusion References

 

1. Hornbrook CH, Stevens VJ, Wingfield DJ, et al. Preventing falls among community-dwelling older persons: results from a randomized trial. The Gerontologist.1994; 34(1):16–23.
2. Chandler JM, Duncan PW. Balance and falls in the elderly: issues in evaluation and treatment. In: Guccione AA, ed. Geriatric Physical Therapy. St Louis, Mo: Mosby;1993 :237–251.
3. Campbell AJ, Borrie MJ, Spears GF. Risk factors for falls in a community-based prospective study of people 70 years and older. J Gerontol.1989; 44:M112–M117.[Abstract]
4. Speechley M, Tinetti ME. Assessment of risk and prevention of falls among elderly persons: role of the physiotherapist. Physiotherapy Canada.1990; 2:75–79.
5. O'Loughlin JL, Robitaille Y, Boivin JF, Suissa S. Incidence of and risk factors for falls and injurious falls among the community-dwelling elderly. Am J Epidemiol.1993; 137:342–354.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
6. Tinetti ME, Williams TF, Mayewski R. Fall risk index for elderly patients based on number of chronic disabilities. Am J Med.1986; 80:429–434.[Web of Science][Medline]
7. Tinetti ME, Speechley M, Ginter SF. Risk factors for falls among elderly persons living in the community. N Engl J Med.1988; 319:1701–1707.[Abstract]
8. Whipple RH, Wolfson LI, Amerman PM. The relationship of knee and ankle weakness to falls in nursing home residents: an isokinetic study. J Am Geriatr Soc.1987; 35:13–20.[Web of Science][Medline]
9. Lord SR, Ward JA, Williams P. Exercise effect on dynamic stability in older women: a randomized controlled trial. Arch Phys Med Rehabil.1996; 77:232–236.[Web of Science][Medline]
10. Kisner C, Colby L. Theurapeutic Exercise Foundations and Techniques. 3rd ed. Philadelphia, Pa: FA Davis Co; 1996.
11. Province MA, Hadley EC, Hornbrook MC, et al. The effects of exercise on falls in elderly patients: a preplanned meta-analysis of the FICSIT trials. Frailty and Injuries: Cooperative Studies of Intervention Techniques. JAMA.1995; 273:1341–1347.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
12. Wolter LL, Studenski SA. A clinical synthesis of falls intervention trials. Topics in Geriatric Rehabilitation.1996; 11(3):9–19.
13. Kline-Mangione KK. Frailty research: a review of the FICSIT trials. Topics in Geriatric Rehabilitation.1996; 11(2):61–70.
14. Vandervoort AA, Chesworth BM, Cunningham DA, et al. Age and sex effects on mobility of the human ankle. J Gerontol.1992; 47:M17–M21.[Abstract]
15. Bennel KL, Goldie PA. The differential effects of external ankle support on postural control. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther.1994; 20:287–295.[Web of Science][Medline]
16. Vandervoort AA, Hill K, Sandrin M, Vyse VM. Mobility impairment and falling in the elderly. Physiotherapy Canada.1990; 42:99–107.
17. Tiberio D. Evaluation of functional ankle dorsiflexion using subtalar neutral position: a clinical report. Phys Ther.1987; 67:955–957.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
18. Saltzman CL, Nawoczenski DA. Complexities of foot architecture as a base of support. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther.1995; 21:354–360.[Web of Science][Medline]
19. Vandervoort AA, Chesworth BM, Cunningham DA, et al. An outcome measure to quantify passive stiffness of the ankle. Can J Public Health.1992; 83(suppl 2):S19–S23.
20. James B, Parker AW. Active and passive mobility of lower limb joints in elderly men and women. Am J Phys Med Rehabil.1989; 68:162–167.[Web of Science][Medline]
21. Sepic SB, Murray MP, Mollinger LA, et al. Strength and range of motion in the ankle in two age groups of men and women. Am J Phys Med.1986; 65:75–84.[Web of Science][Medline]
22. Horak FB. Clinical measurement of postural control in adults. Phys Ther.1987; 67:1881–1885.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
23. Russo SG. Clinical balance measures: literature resources. Neurology Report.1997; 21(1):29–36.
24. Duncan PW, Studenski SA, Chandler J, Prescott B. Functional reach: predictive validity in a sample of elderly male veterans. J Gerontol.1992; 47:M93–M98.[Abstract]
25. Weiner DK, Duncan PW, Chandler J, Studenski SA. Functional reach: a marker of physical frailty. J Am Geriatr Soc.1992; 40:203–207.[Web of Science][Medline]
26. Duncan PW, Weiner DK, Chandler J, Studenski SA. Functional reach: a new clinical measure of balance. J Gerontol.1990; 45:M192–M197.[Abstract]
27. Tinetti ME. Performance-oriented assessment of mobility problems in elderly patients. J Am Geriatr Soc.1986; 34:119–126.[Web of Science][Medline]
28. Clapper MP, Wolf SL. Comparison of the reliability of the Orthor-anger and the standard goniometer for assessing active lower extremity range of motion. Phys Ther.1988; 68:214–218.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
29. Elveru RA, Rothstein JM, Lamb RL, Riddle DL. Methods for taking subtalar joint measurements: a clinical report. Phys Ther.1988; 68:678–682.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
30. Norkin CC, White DJ. Measurement of Joint Motion: A Guide to Goniometry. 2nd ed. Philadephia, Pa: FA Davis Co;1995 :154–161.
31. Elveru RA, Rothstein JM, Lamb RL. Goniometric reliability in a clinical setting: subtalar and ankle joint measurements. Phys Ther.1988; 68:672–677.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
32. Mills EM. The effect of low-intensity aerobic exercise on muscle strength, flexibility, and balance among sedentary elderly persons. Nurs Res.1994; 43:207–211.[Web of Science][Medline]
33. Portney LG, Watkins MP. Foundations of Clinical Research: Applications to Practice. East Norwalk, Conn: Appleton and Lange;1993 .
34. Meldrum D, Finn AM. An investigation of balance function in elderly subjects who have and have not fallen. Physiotherapy.1993; 79:839–842.
35. Walker JM, Sue D, Miles-Elkousy N, et al. Active mobility of the extremities in older subjects. Phys Ther.1984; 64:919–923.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
36. Butler RN Davis R, Lewis CB, et al. Physical fitness: exercise prescription for older adults. Geriatrics.1988; 53:45–46, 49–50, 52–54.

CiteULike

Complore

Connotea

Del.icio.us

Digg

Reddit

Technorati

This article has been cited by other articles:

				A. Surakka and T. Kivela Motivating visually impaired and deaf-blind people to perform regular physical exercises British Journal of Visual Impairment, September 1, 2008; 26(3): 255 - 268. [Abstract] [PDF]

				M. J Faber, R. J Bosscher, and P. C. van Wieringen Clinimetric Properties of the Performance-Oriented Mobility Assessment Physical Therapy, July 1, 2006; 86(7): 944 - 954. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. L. Martin and T. G. McPoil Reliability of Ankle Goniometric Measurements: A Literature Review J Am Podiatr Med Assoc, November 1, 2005; 95(6): 564 - 572. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when Rapid Responses are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Mecagni, C. Articles by O'Sullivan, S. B Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Mecagni, C. Articles by O'Sullivan, S. B Related Collections Balance Tests and Measurements Geriatrics: Other Social Bookmarking                      What's this?