Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Safe Functional Motion test is reliable for assessment of functional movements in individuals at risk for osteoporotic fracture

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Clinical Rheumatology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The Safe Functional Motion (SFM) test is a performance-based tool developed to assess functional movements in individuals at risk for osteoporotic fracture. The purpose of this study was to determine the test–retest and inter-rater reliability of the scores on the short form of the SFM test (SFM-SF). A secondary objective was to evaluate the construct convergent validity of the balance domain. Community-dwelling adults with low bone mass (n = 36) completed the SFM-SF on two occasions. During one visit, SFM-SF performance was scored by two testers and additional tests of balance (Timed Up and Go (TUG), Berg Balance Scale (BERG), and Community Balance and Mobility Scale (CBMS)) were completed. Test–retest and inter-rater reliability of the SFM-SF score is excellent (intraclass correlation coefficient ≥ 0.90), and the balance domain score demonstrates acceptable associations with established clinical measures of balance (Spearman’s rho = −0.69, 0.76, and 0.83 for TUG, BERG, and CBMS, respectively). SFM-SF provides reliable measures of functional movements in community-dwelling individuals at risk for osteoporotic fracture.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Chris Recknor, M.D., or Stephanie Grant M.S. OT/L, IONmed Systems, United Osteoporosis Clinics, 2350 Limestone Parkway, Gainsville, GA 30501, USA (sgrant@ionmed.us).

Abbreviations

BERG:

Berg Balance Scale

CBMS:

Community Balance and Mobility Scale

CS-PFP:

Continuous-scale Physical Functional Performance test

DXA:

Dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry

ICC:

Intraclass correlation coefficient type 2,1

MDC90 :

Minimal detectable change at the 90% confidence level

PPT:

Physical Performance Test

SEM:

Standard error of the measurement

SFM:

Safe Functional Motion test

SFM-SF:

Safe Functional Motion test—short form

TUG:

Timed Up and Go test

References

  1. Cooper C, Melton LJ 3rd (1992) Epidemiology of osteoporosis. Trends Endocrinol Metab 3:224–229

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Lentle B, Brown J, Khan A et al (2007) Recognizing and reporting vertebral fractures: reducing the risk of future osteoporotic fractures. Can Assoc Radiol J 58:27–36

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Bonner FJ Jr, Sinaki M, Grabois M et al (2003) Health professional's guide to rehabilitation of the patient with osteoporosis. Osteoporos Int 14:S1–S22

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Briggs AM, van Dieen JH, Wrigley TV et al (2007) Thoracic kyphosis affects spinal loads and trunk muscle force. Phys Ther 87:595–607

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Schultz AB, Andersson GB, Haderspeck K et al (1982) Analysis and measurement of lumbar trunk loads in tasks involving bends and twists. J Biomech 15:669–675

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Edmondston SJ, Singer KP, Day RE et al (1997) Ex vivo estimation of thoracolumbar vertebral body compressive strength: the relative contributions of bone densitometry and vertebral morphometry. Osteoporos Int 7:142–148

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Cress ME, Buchner DM, Questad KA et al (1996) Continuous-scale physical functional performance in healthy older adults: a validation study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 77:1243–1250

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Cress ME, Meyer M (2003) Maximal voluntary and functional performance levels needed for independence in adults aged 65 to 97 years. Phys Ther 83:37–48

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Reuben DB, Siu AL (1990) An objective measure of physical function of elderly outpatients. J Am Geriatr Soc 38:1105–1112

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Delbaere K, Van den Noortgate N, Bourgois J et al (2006) The Physical Performance Test as a predictor of frequent fallers: a prospective community-based cohort study. Clin Rehabil 20:83–90

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Recknor C, Grant S. IONmed Systems Bone Safety Evaluation www.ionmed.us/bse. Accessed June 29, 2009

  12. Recknor C, Grant S, Catanzarite J et al (2005) Bone safety evaluation and functional risk for fracture. Osteoporos Int 16:S44–S45

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Recknor C, Grant S, MacIntyre NJ (2009) A novel performance-based measure of functional risk for osteoporotic fracture has excellent reliability and good convergent construct validity. Osteoporos Int 20:S226–S227

    Google Scholar 

  14. Shumway-Cook A, Brauer S, Woollacott M (2000) Predicting the probability for falls in community-dwelling older adults using the Timed Up & Go Test. Phys Ther 80:896–903

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Berg K, WoodDauphinee S, Williams JI, Gayton D (1989) Measuring balance in the elderly: preliminary development of an instrument. Physiother Can 41:304–311

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Whitney S, Wrisley D, Furman J (2003) Concurrent validity of the Berg Balance Scale and the Dynamic Gait Index in people with vestibular dysfunction. Physiother Res Int 8:178–186

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Steffen TM, Hacker TA, Mollinger L (2002) Age- and gender-related test performance in community-dwelling elderly people: Six-Minute Walk Test, Berg Balance Scale, Timed Up & Go Test, and gait speeds. Phys Ther 82:128–137

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Howe JA, Inness EL, Venturini A et al (2006) The community balance and mobility scale: a balance measure for individuals with traumatic brain injury. Clin Rehabil 20:885–895

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Rocque R, Bartlett D, Brown J, Garland SJ (2005) Influence of age and gender of healthy adults on scoring patterns on the Community Balance and Mobility Scale. Physiother Can 57:285–292

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. LiuAmbrose T, Khan KM, Eng JJ et al (2004) Resistance and agility training reduce fall risk in women aged 75 to 85 with low bone mass: a 6-month randomized, controlled trial. J Am Geriatr Soc 52:657–665

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. LiuAmbrose T, Khan KM, Donaldson MG et al (2006) Falls-related self-efficacy is independently associated with balance and mobility in older women with low bone mass. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 61A:832–838

    Google Scholar 

  22. Shumway-Cook A, Baldwin M, Polissar NL, Gruber W (1997) Predicting the probability for falls in community-dwelling older adults. Phys Ther 77:812–819

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Strout PE, Fleiss JL (1979) Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol Bull 86:420–428

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Stratford PW (2004) Getting more from the literature: estimating the standard error of measurement for reliability studies. Physiother Can 56:27–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Bland JM, Altman DG (1986) Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1:307–310

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Stratford PW, Spadoni GF (2003) Sample size estimation for the comparison of competing measures' reliability coefficients. Physiother Can 55:225–229

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Cress ME, Petrella JK, Moore TL, Schenkman ML (2005) Continuous-scale physical functional performance test: validity, reliability, and sensitivity of data for the short version. Phys Ther 85:323–335

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. King MB, Judge JO, Whipple R, Wolfson L (2000) Reliability and responsiveness of two physical performance measures examined in the context of a functional training intervention. Phys Ther 80:8–16

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Madureira MM, Takayama L, Gallinaro AL et al (2007) Balance training program is highly effective in improving functional status and reducing the risk of falls in elderly women with osteoporosis: a randomized controlled trial. Osteoporos Int 18:419–425

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank Chris Recknor, MD, and Stephanie Grant, OTR/L, developers of the Safe Functional Motion test (long and short forms), for providing training and guidance in administration of the tool. Also, we are grateful to Prof. Paul Stratford (McMaster University) for his contribution to the design of this study.

Disclosures

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Rehabilitation Science, McMaster University, IAHS—Room 403, 1400 Main Street West, Hamilton, ON, L8S 1C7, Canada

    Norma J. MacIntyre & Carrie L. Stavness

  2. Department of Medicine, St. Joseph’s Healthcare—McMaster University, 501-25 Charlton Avenue East, Hamilton, ON, L8N 1Y2, Canada

    Jonathan D. Adachi

Authors
  1. Norma J. MacIntyre
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Carrie L. Stavness
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jonathan D. Adachi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Norma J. MacIntyre.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

MacIntyre, N.J., Stavness, C.L. & Adachi, J.D. The Safe Functional Motion test is reliable for assessment of functional movements in individuals at risk for osteoporotic fracture. Clin Rheumatol 29, 143–150 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10067-009-1297-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10067-009-1297-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation