Reliability of the adapted reach test and its comparability to the functional reach test in community-dwelling older adults

Limited space, deficient resources, or lack of familiarity with a test often lead to therapists modifying existing tools to fit their clinical needs. The Adapted Reach Test (ART) is a modification of the Functional. Reach Test (FRT). The purpose of this study was to compare the FRT and the ART and to examine the intertester and test-retest reliability of the ART. A convenience sample of 30 community-dwelling residents (23 women, 7 men; aged 65-93) volunteered. Each participant performed the FRT as described in the literature with 1 practice trial and 3 measured trials; the mean score of the 3 trials was used as the FRT score for 1 testing session. This was repeated twice for the ART. The protocol for the ART was similar to that for the FRT, except that distance reached was marked on a manila folder. The mean FRT and ART measures for all participants were 8.2 +/- 3.2 in and 9.7 +/- 3.1 in, respectively; there was a statistically significant difference between FRT and ART results (P = .001). The Pearson correlation between the measures was 0.723. The intraclass correlation coefficients (2,3) comparing pairs of raters were all >= 0.998. The kappa statistic (kappa) for the chance-corrected measure of agreement between the FRT and ART fall risk category rankings was 0.28. Although the relationship between the FRT and the ART was moderately high and both test-retest and interrater reliability were strong, the significant differences between FRT and ART measures precludes recommending the ART as an alternative to the FRT. Modification of established test protocols should therefore be undertaken with caution.