Tests & Measures: A Resource for Pediatric Physical Therapy Practitioners

Functional Reach Test (FRT)

Name of test: Functional reach test (FRT)

Author: Pamela W Duncan

Address: Graduate Program in Physical Therapy

P.O. Box 3965,

Duke University Medical Center

Durham, NC 27710

 

Year Developed: 1990 (for adult patients)

Revision: Ongoing research for pediatric normative values

Publication: Journal of Gerontology

Cost: Free

Purpose: assessment of functional dynamic balance

Target population: children ages 3-12

Time requirements: 5 minutes

Scoring: Measure distance reached forward (for forward reach) and to the side (for lateral reach).  Average of 3 trials in each direction

Materials needed: ruler

Normative Data:

Functional reach – 22.7 to 37 cm

Lateral reach – 16.3 to 22.5 cm

Reliability:

inter-rater – 0.54 – 0.98

intrarater – 0.83

test-retest – 0.54 – 0.88

Validity:

Concurrent validity – correlation between the FRT and laboratory tests of limits of stability (r = 0.42 – 0.77)

Construct validity – correlation between FRT and Gross Motor Function Classification System (rs = -0.88)

Predictive:

Strengths: It is easy and quick to administer.

Weaknesses: The child might not be able to follow simple directions.

Clinical applications: It is a good way to quickly assess dynamic balance.

Resources

1. Bartlett D, Birmingham T. Validity and reliability of a pediatric reach test. Pediatr Phys Ther.2003;15(2):84-92.

2. Deshmuckh A, Ganesan S, Tedla J. Normal values of functional reach and lateral reach in Indian school children. Pediatr Phys Ther. 2011; 23(1):23-30.
3. http://www.injuryresearch.bc.ca/docs/3_20061221_101322Functional%20Reach%20Test.pdf, accessed on 3/14/15

 

Article Summary:

Deshmuckh A, Ganesan S, Tedla J. Normal values of functional reach and lateral reach in Indian school children. Pediatr Phys Ther. 2011; 23(1):23-30.

The purpose of this article is to establish normative values for the functional reach and lateral reach tests in the pediatric population.  This was a cross-sectional study with 350 children in Mangalore city in India who randomly selected.  The children were divided into sub groups based on age and there were 50 children in each age group from 6 – 12.  Of the 50 children in each age group, 25 were boys and 25 were girls were randomly selected.  Anyone less than 10^th or above 90^th percentile for size was excluded as well as uncooperative children.  Anthropometric measures such as weight, height, and upper and lower extremity length were gathered.   Each child was given instructions and performed each test three times.  The average of the three trials was used for comparison.  The results of this study indicate that there is some correlation between age, but 8-11 seem to be more similar.  Height shows a greater correlation to increased distance in both tests.  Weight correlated only in ages 9, 6, and 7.  Upper extremity length also only correlated in certain age groups.  Lower extremity length seemed to correlate in all age groups 6-12 in girls, but only ages 9 and 11 for boys.  This study also showed there is a correlation between the functional reach and lateral reach values.  The strengths of this study were that they looked at multiple ages in both girls and boys who were randomly chosen.  However, the weaknesses of this study are that all participants came from the same city in India.  Also, these were averages of healthy children with no balance issues.  It would be good to look at children who have a balance issue and compare it to another outcome measure.  A good future study may want to look at the MCID for this test.  Overall, this study was good to understand the factors that may effect the functional reach test such as age, height, and limb length.  Based on this study, I would not use this measure as a primary measurement to base any goals on, but as something to quickly assess in order to check progress.