Key points
- The Functional Reach Test measures how far a person can reach forward beyond arm's length while keeping their feet in place: a quick, yardstick-based measure of standing balance.
- In a systematic review and meta-analysis, pooled reach was 26.6 cm for community-dwelling older adults and 15.4 cm for older adults not living in the community.
- In older male veterans, shorter reach was associated with higher odds of recurrent falls: an adjusted odds ratio of 2.00 for reach over 6 but under 10 inches, 4.02 for 6 inches or less, and 8.07 for being unable to reach.
A yardstick measure of the margin of stability
Duncan and colleagues introduced Functional Reach in 1990 as a clinically accessible balance measure: the difference between arm's length and maximal forward reach, using a fixed base of support. In 128 volunteers aged 21 to 87, reach correlated with a laboratory measure of center-of-pressure excursion (r = .71), was precise (coefficient of variation 2.5%) and stable across days (intraclass correlation .81). Age and height both influenced the result.
A follow-up study in 45 community-dwelling adults aged 66 to 104 found reach ranged from 4.3 to 16.5 inches (mean 10.9, SD 3.1) and correlated with other physical performance measures (r = 0.64–0.71) more strongly than with age (r = −0.50), leading the authors to describe it as a marker of physical frailty.
How the test is performed
One normative study followed the Balance Evaluation Systems Test (BESTest) instructions. The participant:
- Stands comfortably close to a wall with a ruler mounted on it.
- Raises the arms to 90°, with the fingertips at the beginning of the ruler.
- Reaches forward horizontally as far as possible without lifting the heels, rotating the trunk or touching the ruler.
The clinician records the maximum distance reached (that protocol capped it at 50 cm). Participants did two trials and the best one was the score, in centimeters. Protocols differ: the meta-analysis below found that assessment methods varied greatly between studies. Use the same setup at every visit.
Published reach values by age and sex
The following values come from 240 healthy Iranian adults (120 men, 120 women; 40 per age group), tested to the protocol above. They are mean (SD) reach in centimeters:
| Age | All | Men | Women |
|---|---|---|---|
| 18–29 | 37.3 (7.4) | 37.8 (7.1) | 36.8 (7.8) |
| 30–39 | 32.1 (7.7) | 32.6 (7.5) | 31.7 (8.0) |
| 40–49 | 30.8 (7.1) | 30.6 (9.2) | 30.9 (4.4) |
| 50–59 | 31.6 (8.1) | 33.5 (8.3) | 29.8 (7.6) |
| 60–69 | 26.1 (7.8) | 30.9 (6.2) | 21.3 (6.1) |
| ≥70 | 24.3 (7.3) | 26.7 (6.1) | 22.0 (7.8) |
Reach declined with age. A 2019 meta-analysis of 40 studies pooled 26.6 cm for community-dwelling and 15.4 cm for non-community-dwelling older adults, found that sex and prospective fall history did not influence results, and recommends separate values for each setting. For comparison with other tests, see our functional test reference values.
What a short reach suggests about falls
In the predictive-validity study, 217 community-dwelling male veterans aged 70 to 104 were followed for six months. Two or more falls counted as recurrent falls. The adjusted odds ratios for recurrent falls were:
- Unable to reach: 8.07 (95% CI 2.8–23.71)
- 6 inches or less: 4.02 (1.84–8.77)
- More than 6 but less than 10 inches: 2.00 (1.35–2.98)
The association was not confounded by age, depression or cognition. Note the population: older men, all veterans. These are risk associations, not a pass/fail cutoff.
What the number leaves out
A reach distance doesn't say how the person got there. One patient may lean from the ankles with a quiet trunk; another may flex at the hips, rotate or rise onto the toes. Those strategies change the number and say something about balance control. Seeing the movement alongside the distance, captured the same way each time, makes those differences visible. For the wider picture, see measuring balance and postural sway.
Seated and modified versions
In patients 2–3 weeks after a first ischemic stroke, the seated Modified Functional Reach Test, reaching both forward and to the side, showed high within-session reliability (ICC 0.90–0.97).
Keeping it in context
Functional Reach is a screen, not a diagnosis. It sits alongside the 4-Stage Balance Test, the Berg Balance Scale and the other tools in our movement assessment tests overview. Objective, consistent measurement supports clinical judgment; it doesn't replace it.
References
- Duncan PW, Weiner DK, Chandler J, Studenski S. Functional reach: a new clinical measure of balance. J Gerontol. 1990;45(6):M192-M197. doi:10.1093/geronj/45.6.M192
- Weiner DK, Duncan PW, Chandler J, Studenski SA. Functional reach: a marker of physical frailty. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1992;40(3):203-207. doi:10.1111/j.1532-5415.1992.tb02068.x
- Duncan PW, Studenski S, Chandler J, Prescott B. Functional reach: predictive validity in a sample of elderly male veterans. J Gerontol. 1992;47(3):M93-M98. doi:10.1093/geronj/47.3.M93
- Rosa MV, Perracini MR, Ricci NA. Usefulness, assessment and normative data of the Functional Reach Test in older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2019;81:149-170. doi:10.1016/j.archger.2018.11.015
- Nakhostin-Ansari A, Naghshtabrizi N, Naghdi S, et al. Normative values of functional reach test, single-leg stance test, and timed "UP and GO" with and without dual-task in healthy Iranian adults: a cross-sectional study. Ann Med Surg (Lond). 2022;80:104053. doi:10.1016/j.amsu.2022.104053
- Katz-Leurer M, Fisher I, Neeb M, Schwartz I, Carmeli E. Reliability and validity of the modified functional reach test at the sub-acute stage post-stroke. Disabil Rehabil. 2009;31(3):243-248. doi:10.1080/09638280801927830