Measuring methods for functional reach test: comparison of 1-arm reach and 2-arm reach.
biomechanical · Level V
Where this comes from
- Record sourced from PubMed, PMID 19969175.
- Also identified by DOI 10.1016/j.apmr.2009.07.021.
- No licence information is recorded for this record.
- Because redistribution is not established, this page shows the abstract only. Follow the links below for the full text.
Abstract
Kage H, Okuda M, Nakamura I, Kunitsugu I, Sugiyama S, Hobara T. Measuring methods for functional reach test: comparison of 1-arm reach and 2-arm reach. To investigate which functional reach test better reflects the center of pressure excursion, a 1-arm reach or a 2-arm reach, and to investigate the effect of trunk rotation on the reach distance in a 1-arm reach. In addition, we considered the influence of the individual variation at the starting position. Descriptive study using a force platform and a 3-dimensional (3D) motion capture system. Motion analysis laboratory in a college setting. Elderly volunteers (N=41; 15 men, 26 women; 71.8+/-5.2y). Not applicable. 3D coordinate data and the movement of the center of pressure. The correlation between the reach distance and the center of pressure excursion was significantly higher (P<.05) for the 1-arm reach (r=.60, .72) compared with a 2-arm reach (r=.41, .55). In the case of the 1-arm reach, center of pressure excursion was a significant factor affecting reach distance (beta=.319, .470) in multivariate regression analysis, but trunk rotation was not (beta=.162, .095). When the reach distance was measured using the heel as a reference, the correlation was stronger. To evaluate dynamic balance, a 1-arm reach, which better reflects center of pressure excursion, is more valid. It is meaningful to reduce the individual variation of the acromion at the starting position.
Medical subject headings
- Movement
- Postural Balance
- Upper Extremity