Balance measures: Berg, Mini-BESTest, TUG and more

For physical therapists choosing a balance measure for an adult: match the test to the goal and the patient’s level. The Berg Balance Scale, Functional Gait Assessment and ABC Scale are core measures in neurologic rehabilitation, the Mini-BESTest shows less ceiling effect than the Berg, and STEADI screens adults 65 and older with three quick tests.⁠^1,2,3

Which balance outcome measure should a physical therapist use?

The one that matches the patient’s goal and level: a broad standing-balance scale for static and dynamic balance, a walking-balance test when the goal is balance while walking, a confidence scale for fear of falling, and a short screen when the question is simply whether to look further. The neurologic core-measures guideline makes that split explicit, recommending the Berg Balance Scale for sitting and standing balance, the Functional Gait Assessment for balance while walking and the Activities-specific Balance Confidence Scale for balance confidence, for adults whose goals and capacity to change lie in those areas.⁠¹ The World Falls Guidelines list gait speed, the Timed Up and Go, the Berg Balance Scale, the chair stand test and the Short Physical Performance Battery among the commonly used gait and balance tools.⁠¹³

Then weigh three practical questions: whether the patient is likely to score near the top of the scale, how much clinic time the visit allows, and whether the result needs to be compared with a published cutoff for a matching population. Gait speed belongs in the same battery; its protocol and norms are on the gait speed reference.

Which balance test fits which patient group?

Start from the population the evidence comes from. The table pairs common adult patient groups with the measures that have published support in that group, and the reason each is there.

A patient who walks without a device at more than 1.0 m/s is the ceiling case the core-measures guideline describes: such patients may hit the top of the Berg Balance Scale, and for a patient scoring near the top the guideline says re-testing may not be needed.⁠¹ For them, a walking-balance or dynamic-balance test gives room to show change.

What is the Berg Balance Scale cutoff for fall risk?

It depends on the population: below 45 in the scale’s original validation, and 50 or below in a later systematic review of community-dwelling older adults. The Shirley Ryan AbilityLab summary reports Berg and colleagues’ 1992 finding that a score of 56 indicates functional balance and a score under 45 indicates a greater risk of falling, from samples of acute stroke patients, residents of a home for the elderly and laboratory volunteers; in that study, balance scores predicted multiple falls among the residents.⁠^20,21 In the systematic review, a score of 50 or less raised the posttest probability of a fall to 59%, and 51 or more lowered it to 23%, from a pretest probability of 30%.⁠⁴ In 80 people with Parkinson disease, a score of 47 or less of 56 predicted falls at six months with a sensitivity of 0.79 and a specificity of 0.86.⁠¹⁰

The scale has 14 items, each scored from 0 (unable) to 4 (independent), summed to a maximum of 56, and uses a chair, stopwatch, ruler and step.⁠¹ It is free and takes under 20 minutes by the guideline’s estimate, or 15 to 20 minutes by the AbilityLab’s.⁠^1,20

How much change on the Berg Balance Scale is real change?

It depends on the starting score and the population. In 118 people over 65 in physiotherapy rehabilitation, without stroke, Parkinson disease or recent hip arthroplasty, the 95% minimal detectable change was 4 points for a starting score of 45 to 56, 5 for 35 to 44, 7 for 25 to 34 and 5 for 0 to 24.⁠⁹ In 93 adults with balance disorders, the MDC95 was 6.2 points and the minimal important change 7 points.⁠² The core-measures guideline reports a standard error of measurement of 2.49 points in acute stroke.⁠¹

Reliability is harder to achieve in the middle of the scale: the guideline notes that high reliability may be more difficult for people scoring between 20 and 44, and asks clinics to establish consistency within and among raters before using the scale and to repeat that every year.⁠¹ A clinic that has two therapists score one patient together once a year has a simple way to meet that.

Mini-BESTest vs Berg: which balance scale should you use?

Use the Mini-BESTest when the patient is likely to reach the Berg’s ceiling or when reactive balance and gait matter to the goal, and the Berg when the comparison needs its published cutoffs or the neurologic core set. In 93 people with balance disorders tested before and after 10 sessions of physical therapy, 12.9% reached the Berg’s maximum after treatment against 2.1% on the Mini-BESTest; the Mini-BESTest’s MDC95 was 3.5 points against 6.2, and its minimal important change 4 points against 7.⁠² The authors concluded the two behave similarly, with the Mini-BESTest showing a lower ceiling effect, slightly higher reliability and greater accuracy in identifying patients who improved.⁠²

The Mini-BESTest came from a psychometric reduction of the 36-item BESTest in 115 adults with neurologic balance disorders, keeping 14 items that focus on dynamic balance.⁠¹⁴ Its sections are anticipatory postural adjustments, reactive postural control, sensory orientation and dynamic gait, each item scored 0 to 2.⁠¹² The core-measures guideline considered it and left it out of the core set because the evidence available did not meet the guideline’s criteria.⁠¹

Is the Mini-BESTest scored out of 28 or 32 points?

Out of 28 by the test’s own directions, which count the lower of the two sides on the two items scored left and right; many research studies counted both sides and reported scores out of 32.⁠¹² Check which total a cutoff used before applying it. In 110 people with Parkinson disease scored out of 28, a baseline score below 19 carried a significantly higher risk of recurrent falls over the next six months, with a sensitivity of 79%.⁠¹¹ An earlier Parkinson study used 20 of 32 points, and in chronic stroke a score of 17.5 or less identified people with a history of falling, with a sensitivity and specificity of 64%.⁠^10,12

What TUG time indicates fall risk in older adults?

STEADI and a systematic review both use 12 seconds or more for community-dwelling older adults; other studies and guidelines use 13.5 or more than 15 seconds. The CDC’s STEADI form states that an older adult who takes 12 seconds or more is at risk for falling, and in the systematic review a TUG of 12 seconds or more raised the posttest probability of a fall to 47%, against 25% under 12 seconds.⁠^4,5 Shumway-Cook and colleagues’ 13.5-second cutoff came from 30 older adults, half with two or more falls in the prior six months, in whom the TUG was 87% sensitive and 87% specific.⁠^16,22 The World Falls Guidelines accept more than 15 seconds as an alternative to gait speed, while noting the evidence for risk stratification is mixed.⁠¹³

A meta-analysis of ten studies at 13.5 seconds found a pooled specificity of 0.74 and a sensitivity of 0.31, concluding that the TUG has limited ability to predict falls in community-dwelling older adults and should not be used in isolation.⁠⁸ A long TUG is a reason to look further; a short one does not clear the patient.

How do you administer the Timed Up and Go test?

Seat the patient in a standard armchair, mark a line 3 meters (10 feet) away, and time from "Go" until they sit back down after walking to the line, turning and walking back at their normal pace. That is the CDC’s STEADI procedure, which allows regular footwear and a walking aid if needed and asks the clinician to stay by the patient.⁠⁵ The test began as a timed version of the Get-Up and Go in 60 geriatric day-hospital patients with a mean age of 79.5.⁠¹⁵ The AbilityLab summary adds an unscored trial run first and the same assistive device at every test.⁠¹⁶ Watch as well as time: STEADI’s form asks the clinician to observe postural stability, gait, stride length and sway.⁠⁵

What is the Functional Gait Assessment cutoff for falls?

A score of 22 or less of 30 in community-dwelling older adults. In 35 adults aged 60 to 90 whose falls were tracked with monthly calendars for six months, the authors found that cutoff effective in classifying fall risk and predicting unexplained falls.⁠²³ The AbilityLab summary gives its sensitivity and specificity as 85% and 86%, and reports that 20 or less was the optimal cutoff for predicting unexplained falls in the next six months, with a sensitivity of 100% and a specificity of 76%.⁠¹⁷ In Parkinson disease, 15 or less of 30 predicted falls at six months with a sensitivity of 0.64 and a specificity of 0.81.⁠¹⁰

The FGA is a 10-item walking-balance test built from the Dynamic Gait Index, each item scored 0 to 3 and summed to 30, with obstacles, a stopwatch and steps.⁠^1,19 The AbilityLab gives a marked walkway of 20 feet (6 meters) by 12 inches and a time of 5 to 20 minutes, under 20 for a new clinician and 5 to 10 for an experienced one.⁠¹⁷ Its minimal detectable change was 4.2 points in mixed acute and chronic neurologic conditions; in acute vestibular dysfunction 25% of patients scored at the ceiling, and the guideline advises a harder measure for a patient near 30.⁠¹

How do you score the 30-second chair stand test?

Count the full stands the patient completes in 30 seconds, arms crossed at the wrists against the chest, from a straight-backed chair without arms with a 17-inch seat. STEADI’s form counts a stand that is more than halfway up when time runs out, and ends the test with a score of 0 if the patient must push up with their arms.⁠⁶ A below-average score for age and sex indicates a risk for falls.⁠⁶

The test was validated in 76 community-dwelling older adults with a mean age of 70.5, with test-retest correlations of 0.84 in men and 0.92 in women and correlations of 0.78 and 0.71 with weight-adjusted leg-press strength.⁠²⁴ STEADI gives its purpose as testing leg strength and endurance, and lists it beside the TUG and the 4-Stage Balance Test.⁠^3,6

How is the STEADI 4-Stage Balance Test scored?

By the hardest stance the patient holds for 10 seconds: an older adult who cannot hold the tandem stand for at least 10 seconds is at increased risk of falling. The CDC form tests four positions in order, feet side by side, the instep of one foot touching the big toe of the other, tandem stance heel to toe, and standing on one foot, moving on only when a position is held for 10 seconds without moving the feet or needing support, and stopping otherwise.⁠⁷ Patients use no cane or walker and keep their eyes open.⁠⁷

The last stage carries its own evidence: in the systematic review of community-dwelling older adults, being unable to hold single-limb stance for at least 6.5 seconds raised the posttest probability of a fall to 45%, and holding it longer lowered it to 28%.⁠⁴ Record the seconds held in each stance, not only pass or fail, so a later test can show progress within a stage.

What does the ABC Scale add to a balance assessment?

The patient’s own confidence, which performance tests do not measure. The Activities-specific Balance Confidence Scale has 16 items, each rated from 0% to 100%, averaged into a total from 0% (no confidence) to 100% (complete confidence), and takes 5 to 10 minutes.⁠^1,18 It was developed with 15 clinicians and 12 older outpatients and tested in 60 community-dwelling seniors aged 65 to 95, and its authors found it more suitable than the Falls Efficacy Scale for detecting loss of balance confidence in higher-functioning seniors.⁠²⁵ The AbilityLab summary recommends giving it by face-to-face interview.⁠¹⁸

In 125 older adults (45 fallers and 80 non-fallers), fallers had lower ABC and Berg scores, and the AbilityLab summary reports from that study that a score below 67% indicates a risk for falling.⁠^18,26 In 27 people with chronic stroke, a score of 81.1 gave relative certainty that a person did not have a history of multiple falls.⁠¹⁸ Change is harder to pin down: in Parkinson disease, published minimal detectable changes range from 11% to 30%.⁠¹ One item asks about walking outside on icy sidewalks, which people rate differently depending on season and culture.⁠¹⁸

How should balance test cutoffs be read for one patient?

As a shift in probability, not a verdict. The systematic review of fall-risk measures in community-dwelling older adults found that no single test showed strong posttest probability, and that for most measures specificity was much higher than sensitivity, which makes them better at ruling fall risk in than ruling it out.⁠⁴ The authors of a Parkinson fall-prediction study put it plainly: cutoff scores are guidelines, not definitive boundaries that separate fallers from non-fallers.⁠¹⁰

• Match the population. Use the cutoff from the group most like the patient: an older-adult value for a community-dwelling older adult, a Parkinson value for Parkinson disease.⁠^4,11
• Match the scoring. Check whether a Mini-BESTest cutoff was set on 28 or 32 points.⁠¹²
• Add the history. STEADI’s screen asks three questions: whether the person feels unsteady when standing or walking, worries about falling, or has fallen in the past year.⁠³
• Use more than one test. STEADI pairs a mobility test with a strength test and a static balance test.⁠³
• Discuss the result. The core-measures guideline asks clinicians to discuss outcome measures and their results with patients and decide together how they shape care.⁠¹

How should balance measures be documented and repeated?

Under the same conditions each time, at least at admission and discharge and between them when feasible, which is the core-measures guideline’s schedule.⁠¹ When a patient cannot complete a measure, the guideline asks for a score of 0 rather than a blank.⁠¹ For timed tests, record the assistive device and use the same one at every test.⁠¹⁶

What Medicare asks to see when repeated measures go into a progress report or re-evaluation is covered in PT reassessment and documentation.

Sources

1. Moore JL, Potter K, Blankshain K, Kaplan SL, O’Dwyer LC, Sullivan JE. A Core Set of Outcome Measures for Adults With Neurologic Conditions Undergoing Rehabilitation: A Clinical Practice Guideline (Journal of Neurologic Physical Therapy, 2018;42(3):174-220, doi:10.1097/NPT.0000000000000229, PMID 29901487, PMC6023606; developed with support from the APTA and the Academy of Neurologic Physical Therapy; full text read through PubMed Central). Checked October 30, 2026.
   Show the passageHide the passage

   “The core set includes the BBS, FGA, ABC, 10mWT, 6MWT, and 5TSTS, and the recommended patient goal assessment for adults who are undergoing neurologic physical therapy.”; “In cases when a patient cannot complete one or more core set OMs (eg, a patient who is unable to walk; thus, cannot complete the 10mWT or the 6MWT), a score of 0 should be documented.”; “The core set should be administered under the same test conditions at least 2 times, at admission and discharge, and when feasible between these periods”; “Clinicians should discuss the purpose of OMs, OM results, and how these results influence treatment options with patients undergoing neurologic physical therapy.”; “This protocol assesses the time to the nearest 100th of a second to walk the central 6 m of a 10-m walkway at the patient’s comfortable and fast walking speeds.”; “Two trials are administered at the comfortable speed, with the instruction “walk at your own comfortable speed and stop when you reach the far line,” followed by 2 trials at the fast speed, with the instruction “walk as fast as you can safely walk.””; “Use of an assistive device is permitted and should be documented.”; “Data to assist in interpretation and measuring changes were reported in chronic stable (stroke; MDC = 0.18 m/s)”; “PD (MDC = 0.18 m/s for comfortable and 0.25 m/s for fast speeds)”; “The BBS is a 14-item clinician-rated scale that assesses sitting and standing, static and dynamic balance.”; “The total score is calculated by summing the scores of the 14 items, with the maximum score of 56 and the minimum score of 0.”; “The patient’s ability to complete each item is rated on a 0- to 4-point scale, with 0 representing the inability to complete the task and 4 reflecting independent item completion.”; “The BBS has high clinical feasibility, as it requires minimal equipment, is free, and requires less than 20 minutes to administer.”; “A standardized testing form with administration instructions is available, and commonly available equipment (chair, stopwatch, ruler, and step) is used during testing.”; “It may be more difficult to achieve high reliability on individuals who score between 20 and 44.”; “Patients who have a high level of balance ability (eg, able to walk without an assistive device at a gait speed >1.0 m/s) may experience a ceiling effect on the BBS.”; “In participants with acute stroke, the SEM was 2.49 points”; “Clinics and organizations should establish administration consistency within and among clinicians prior to using the BBS, and this should be repeated annually.”; “In patients who perform well on the BBS, and score near the top of the scale, it may not be necessary to readminister the test.”; “The FGA is a 10-item clinician-rated test that assesses balance while walking.”; “To score the FGA, the items are summed and a maximum total score is 30.”; “A testing form with administration instructions is available, and commonly available equipment (obstacles, stopwatch, and steps) is used during testing.”; “In participants with mixed acute and chronic stable conditions, Lin et al calculated an MDC of 4.2.”; “In individuals with acute vestibular dysfunction, the ceiling effect was 25%.”; “If a patient demonstrates a high score (near 30 out of 30), or is likely to do so, the clinician may need to select a more challenging OM to assess changes over time.”; “Each item is rated on a 0% to 100% scale, and the total score is calculated by adding item scores and dividing by 16”; “requires minimal time (5-10 minutes)”; “Jonasson et al calculated an MDC of 11%.”; “Steffen and Seney reported a substantially higher MDC of 30% in a similar sample.”; “was considered for inclusion in the core set of OMs; however, it did not meet the established criteria.” The last quotation is the guideline’s sentence on the Mini-BESTest.
2. Godi M, Franchignoni F, Caligari M, Giordano A, Turcato AM, Nardone A. Comparison of reliability, validity, and responsiveness of the Mini-BESTest and Berg Balance Scale in patients with balance disorders (Physical Therapy, 2013;93(2):158-167, doi:10.2522/ptj.20120171, PMID 23023812; abstract read through the Europe PMC record). Checked October 30, 2026.
   Show the passageHide the passage

   “Ninety-three participants (mean age=66.2 years, SD=13.2; 53 women, 40 men) with balance deficits were recruited.”; “Responsiveness and minimal important change were assessed (after 10 sessions of physical therapy)”; “After treatment, the maximum score was found in 12 participants (12.9%) with BBS and in 2 participants (2.1%) with Mini-BESTest.”; “Test-retest reliability for total scores was significantly higher for the Mini-BESTest (ICC=.96) than for the BBS (ICC=.92), whereas interrater reliability was similar (ICC=.98 versus .97, respectively).”; “The standard error of measurement (SEM) was 1.26 and the minimum detectable change at the 95% confidence level (MDC(95)) was 3.5 points for Mini-BESTest, whereas the SEM was 2.18 and the MDC(95) was 6.2 points for the BBS.”; “The best minimal important change (MIC) was 4 points for the Mini-BESTest and 7 points for the BBS.”; “The 2 scales behave similarly, but the Mini-BESTest appears to have a lower ceiling effect, slightly higher reliability levels, and greater accuracy in classifying individual patients who show significant improvement in balance function.”
3. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, STEADI. Algorithm for Fall Risk Screening, Assessment, and Intervention (2019). Checked October 30, 2026.
   Show the passageHide the passage

   “STEADI Algorithm for Fall Risk Screening, Assessment, and Intervention among Community-Dwelling Adults 65 years and older”; “SCREEN for fall risk yearly, or any time patient presents with an acute fall.”; “Three key questions for patients [at risk if YES to any question] - Feels unsteady when standing or walking? - Worries about falling? - Has fallen in past year?”; “Evaluate gait, strength, & balance”; “Timed Up & Go 30-Second Chair Stand 4-Stage Balance Test”. The algorithm lists the three tests as its common assessments of gait, strength and balance.
4. Lusardi MM, Fritz S, Middleton A, Allison L, Wingood M, Phillips E, et al. Determining Risk of Falls in Community Dwelling Older Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Using Posttest Probability (Journal of Geriatric Physical Therapy, 2017;40(1):1-36, doi:10.1519/JPT.0000000000000099, PMID 27537070, PMC5158094; full text read through PubMed Central). Checked October 30, 2026.
   Show the passageHide the passage

   “have a sample size of at least 30 ambulatory community-living older adults (≥65 years), and track falls occurrence for a minimum of 6 months.”; “No single test/measure demonstrated strong PoTP values.”; “Berg Balance Scale score (≤50 points), Timed Up and Go times (≥12 seconds), and 5 times sit-to-stand times (≥12) seconds are currently the most evidence-supported functional measures to determine individual risk of future falls.”; “For most, Sp values were much higher than Sn values, indicating greater usefulness for ruling in risk of future falls than ruling them out.”; “A cut score of 50 points provides a PoTP of 59% for those who score 50 or less (a positive test) and from a PoTP of 23% for those who score 51 or more points (a negative test).”; “The single-task Timed Up and Go (TUG) test 12 seconds or more had a PoTP of 47% (positive test) and a PoTP of 25% if TUG time less than 12 seconds.”; “being unable to maintain the SLS potions for at least 6.5 seconds (positive test) yielded a PoTP of 45%.”; “Exceeding this time (negative test) yields a PoTP of 28%.”; “Self-selected walking speed (SSWS) less than 1.0 m/s (positive test) resulted in a PoTP of 39%. An SSWS 1.0 m/s or more (negative test) resulted in a PoTP of 20%.”; “Two of these, (combined sample size 509 participants) also considered an SSWS cut score of 0.6 m/s, reporting a PoTP of 61% for those walking 0.6 m/s or less”; “Summary of Clinically Useful Indicators of Risk of 1 or More Future Falls Based on a PrTP of 30%”.
5. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, STEADI. Assessment: Timed Up & Go (TUG) (two-page clinician form, 2017). Checked October 30, 2026.
   Show the passageHide the passage

   “Patients wear their regular footwear and can use a walking aid, if needed.”; “Always stay by the patient for safety.”; “Begin by having the patient sit back in a standard arm chair and identify a line 3 meters, or 10 feet away, on the floor.”; “An older adult who takes ≥12 seconds to complete the TUG is at risk for falling.”; “Observe the patient’s postural stability, gait, stride length, and sway.”
6. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, STEADI. Assessment: 30-Second Chair Stand (clinician form, 2017). Checked October 30, 2026.
   Show the passageHide the passage

   “A chair with a straight back without arm rests (seat 17” high), and a stopwatch.”; “Place your hands on the opposite shoulder crossed, at the wrists.”; “Keep your back straight, and keep your arms against your chest.”; “If the patient must use his/her arms to stand, stop the test. Record “0” for the number and score.”; “If the patient is over halfway to a standing position when 30 seconds have elapsed, count it as a stand.”; “A below average score indicates a risk for falls.” Its table of below-average scores, summarized here, not quoted (men, then women): ages 60-64, fewer than 14 and fewer than 12 stands; 65-69, fewer than 12 and 11; 70-74, fewer than 12 and 10; 75-79, fewer than 11 and 10; 80-84, fewer than 10 and 9; 85-89, fewer than 8 and 8; 90-94, fewer than 7 and 4.
7. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, STEADI. Assessment: The 4-Stage Balance Test (two-page clinician form, 2017). Checked October 30, 2026.
   Show the passageHide the passage

   “Purpose: To assess static balance”; “If the patient can hold a position for 10 seconds without moving their feet or needing support, go on to the next position. If not, STOP the test.”; “Patients should not use an assistive device (cane or walker) and they should keep their eyes open.”; “Place the instep of one foot so it is touching the big toe of the other foot.”; “Tandem stand: Place one foot in front of the other, heel touching toe.”; “Stand on one foot.”; “An older adult who cannot hold the tandem stand for at least 10 seconds is at increased risk of falling.”
8. Barry E, Galvin R, Keogh C, Horgan F, Fahey T. Is the Timed Up and Go test a useful predictor of risk of falls in community dwelling older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis (BMC Geriatrics, 2014;14:14, doi:10.1186/1471-2318-14-14, PMID 24484314, PMC3924230; abstract read through the Europe PMC record). Checked October 30, 2026.
   Show the passageHide the passage

   “Twenty-five studies were included in the systematic review and 10 studies were included in meta-analysis.”; “The TUG test was found to be more useful at ruling in rather than ruling out falls in individuals classified as high risk (>13.5 sec), with a higher pooled specificity (0.74, 95% CI 0.52-0.88) than sensitivity (0.31, 95% CI 0.13-0.57).”; “The Timed Up and Go test has limited ability to predict falls in community dwelling elderly and should not be used in isolation to identify individuals at high risk of falls in this setting.”
9. Donoghue D, Physiotherapy Research and Older People (PROP) group, Stokes EK. How much change is true change? The minimum detectable change of the Berg Balance Scale in elderly people (Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 2009;41(5):343-346, doi:10.2340/16501977-0337, PMID 19363567; abstract read through the Europe PMC record). Checked October 30, 2026.
   Show the passageHide the passage

   “in a group of elderly people, undergoing physiotherapy rehabilitation”; “Cross-sectional sample of convenience of people over 65 years (n = 118) without a previous history of stroke, Parkinson’s disease or recent hip arthroplasty.”; “A change of 4 points is needed to be 95% confident that true change has occurred if a patient scores within 45-56 initially, 5 points if they score within 35-44, 7 points if they score within 25-34 and, finally, 5 points if their initial score is within 0-24 on the Berg Balance Scale.”
10. Duncan RP, Leddy AL, Cavanaugh JT, Dibble LE, Ellis TD, Ford MP, et al. Accuracy of fall prediction in Parkinson disease: six-month and 12-month prospective analyses (Parkinson’s Disease, 2012;2012:237673, doi:10.1155/2012/237673, PMID 22191069, PMC3236452; full text read through PubMed Central). Checked October 30, 2026.
    Show the passageHide the passage

    “The BESTest, Mini-BESTest, Functional Gait Assessment (FGA), and Berg Balance Scale (BBS) were administered to 80 participants with idiopathic PD at baseline.”; “it is important to emphasize that cutoff scores should be utilized with caution and with the appreciation that any and all cutoff scores are simply guidelines and not definitive boundaries that separate fallers from nonfallers.” Its Table 2(a), predictive values at six months, summarized here, not quoted: Mini-BESTest at or below 20 of 32 points, sensitivity 0.86, specificity 0.78; Berg Balance Scale at or below 47 of 56, sensitivity 0.79, specificity 0.86; FGA at or below 15 of 30, sensitivity 0.64, specificity 0.81.
11. Mak MK, Auyeung MM. The mini-BESTest can predict parkinsonian recurrent fallers: a 6-month prospective study (Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 2013;45(6):565-571, doi:10.2340/16501977-1144, PMID 23673397; full text read at the journal). Checked October 30, 2026.
    Show the passageHide the passage

    “A total of 110 patients with Parkinson’s disease completed the study and were included in the final analysis.”; “The Mini-BESTest items are rated on a 3-point scale from 0 to 2 and the total score ranges from 0 to 28 with a higher score indicating better balance performance.”; “We further established that a cut-off Mini-BESTest score of 19 had the best sensitivity (79%) for predicting future falls in patients with Parkinson’s disease.”; “The results indicate that those with a Mini-BESTest score < 19 at baseline had a significantly higher risk of sustaining recurrent falls in the next 6 months.”
12. Shirley Ryan AbilityLab, Rehabilitation Measures Database. Mini-Balance Evaluation Systems Test (instrument summary, last updated June 4, 2013). Checked October 30, 2026.
    Show the passageHide the passage

    “The Mini BESTest is a 14-item test scored on a 3-level ordinal scale.”; “1) Anticipatory postural adjustments 2) Reactive postural control 3) Sensory orientation 4) Dynamic gait”; “Total score = 28 points per test directions.”; “The original BESTest 4 level (0 - 3) scoring was revised to 3 levels (0 - 2) due to redundancy.”; “HR Highly Recommend”; “Recommendations Based on Parkinson Disease Hoehn and Yahr stage: I II III IV V PD EDGE HR HR HR HR NR”; “For research, many studies specify use of both left and right data, thus calculating data based on 32 (vs. 28) points.”; “Note: original test published standards and instructions, state to count the lowest score of the two sides.”; “Chronic Stroke (Tsang et al 2013, n = 106 people with stroke, mean age 57.1 ± 11.0 years, 73 men, 33 women and 48 controls, mean age 60.2 ± 9.3 years, 28 men and 20 women) Scores of ≤ 17.5 identified those with a history of falling, sensitivity 64%, specificity 64% AUC 0.64”.
13. Montero-Odasso M, van der Velde N, Martin FC, Petrovic M, Tan MP, Ryg J, et al.; Task Force on Global Guidelines for Falls in Older Adults. World guidelines for falls prevention and management for older adults: a global initiative (Age and Ageing, 2022;51(9):afac205, doi:10.1093/ageing/afac205, PMID 36178003, PMC9523684; full text read through PubMed Central). Checked October 30, 2026.
    Show the passageHide the passage

    “Opportunistic case finding for falls risk is recommended for community-dwelling older adults.”; “For risk stratification, we recommend use of gait speed, with a cut-off value of <0.8 m/s on the basis of its predictive ability and simplicity”; “Alternatively, the Timed Up and Go (TUG) test can be used, with a cut-off value of >15 seconds, although evidence for fall risk stratification is mixed.”; “Assessment tools that are useful and commonly used in the assessment of gait and balance include: gait speed, The Timed Up and Go (TUG) test, the untimed Get Up And Go test, Berg Balance Scale, the Chair Stand test (CST) and Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB).”
14. Franchignoni F, Horak F, Godi M, Nardone A, Giordano A. Using psychometric techniques to improve the Balance Evaluation Systems Test: the mini-BESTest (Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 2010;42(4):323-331, doi:10.2340/16501977-0537, PMID 20461334, PMC3228839; abstract read through the Europe PMC record). Checked October 30, 2026.
    Show the passageHide the passage

    “Performance of the BESTest was examined in a convenience sample of 115 consecutive adult patients with diverse neurological diagnoses and disease severity, referred to rehabilitation for balance disorders.”; “Factor analysis selected 24 out of the 36 original BESTest items”; “The new 14-item scale (dubbed mini-BESTest) focuses on dynamic balance, can be conducted in 10-15 min, and contains items belonging evenly to 4 of the 6 sections from the original BESTest.”
15. Podsiadlo D, Richardson S. The timed “Up & Go”: a test of basic functional mobility for frail elderly persons (Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 1991;39(2):142-148, doi:10.1111/j.1532-5415.1991.tb01616.x, PMID 1991946; abstract read through the Europe PMC record). Checked October 30, 2026.
    Show the passageHide the passage

    “This study evaluated a modified, timed version of the “Get-Up and Go” Test (Mathias et al, 1986) in 60 patients referred to a Geriatric Day Hospital (mean age 79.5 years).”; “The patient is observed and timed while he rises from an arm chair, walks 3 meters, turns, walks back, and sits down again.”
16. Shirley Ryan AbilityLab, Rehabilitation Measures Database. Timed Up and Go (instrument summary, last updated November 6, 2013). Checked October 30, 2026.
    Show the passageHide the passage

    “Time to Administer Less than 3 minutes”; “The patient should have one practice trial that is not included in the score (Podsiadlo & Richardson, 1991).”; “Patient must use the same assistive device each time he/she is tested to be able to compare scores.”; “Community dwelling adults > 13.5* Shumway-Cook et al, 2000 Older stoke patients > 14* Andersson et al, 2006 Older adults already attending a falls clinic > 15* Whitney et al, 2005”.
17. Shirley Ryan AbilityLab, Rehabilitation Measures Database. Functional Gait Assessment (instrument summary, last updated November 9, 2016). Checked October 30, 2026.
    Show the passageHide the passage

    “Marked walking area: Length = 20 feet (6 meters); width 12 inches (30.48 cm)”; “Time to Administer 5-20 minutes New Clinician: less than 20 minutes Experienced Clinician: 5-10 minutes”; “Scores of ≤ 22/30 on the FGA were effective in predicting falls, Sensitivity 85%, Specificity 86%”; “Scores of ≤ 20/30 on the FGA were optimal to predict older adults residing in community dwellings who would sustain unexplained falls in the next 6 months, Sensitivity 100%, Specificity 76%”.
18. Shirley Ryan AbilityLab, Rehabilitation Measures Database. Activities-Specific Balance Confidence Scale (instrument summary, last updated August 15, 2024). Checked October 30, 2026.
    Show the passageHide the passage

    “A score of zero represents no confidence, while a score of 100 represents complete confidence.”; “Can be self-administered or via interview; recommended to administer by face-to-face interview (Powell & Meyers, 1995).”; “(Lajoie & Gallagher, 2004; n = 125; mean age for fallers = 75.50 (3.14) and 73.80 (2.75) years for non-fallers, Fallers and Non-fallers) Scores < 67% indicates a risk for falling; can accurately classify people who fall 84% of the time.”; “(Beninato et al., 2009; n = 27; mean age for fallers = 61.2 (13.5) and 55.2 (11.6) years for non-fallers, Chronic Stroke) Cut-off score of 81.1 can provide relative certainty that the individual did not have a history of multiple falls”; “Respondents may rate the item on confidence to “walk outside on icy sidewalks” differently based on seasonal and cultural considerations.”
19. Wrisley DM, Marchetti GF, Kuharsky DK, Whitney SL. Reliability, internal consistency, and validity of data obtained with the functional gait assessment (Physical Therapy, 2004;84(10):906-918, doi:10.1093/ptj/84.10.906, PMID 15449976; abstract read through the Europe PMC record). Checked October 30, 2026.
    Show the passageHide the passage

    “The Functional Gait Assessment (FGA) is a 10-item gait assessment based on the Dynamic Gait Index.”; “Seven physical therapists from various practice settings, 3 physical therapist students, and 6 patients with vestibular disorders volunteered to participate.”
20. Shirley Ryan AbilityLab, Rehabilitation Measures Database. Berg Balance Scale (instrument summary, last updated June 30, 2020). Checked October 30, 2026.
    Show the passageHide the passage

    “Time to Administer 15-20 minutes”; “(Berg et al., 1992; n = 70 acute stroke patients; mean age = 71.6 (10.1) years; n = 113 individuals from a home for the elderly; mean age = 83.5 (5.3) years; n = 31 elderly individuals who agreed to participate in a laboratory study; mean age = 83.0 (6.9) years) Score of 56 indicates functional balance Score of < 45 indicates individuals may be at greater risk of falling”.
21. Berg KO, Wood-Dauphinee SL, Williams JI, Maki B. Measuring balance in the elderly: validation of an instrument (Canadian Journal of Public Health, 1992;83 Suppl 2:S7-11, PMID 1468055; abstract read through the Europe PMC record). Checked October 30, 2026.
    Show the passageHide the passage

    “Elderly residents (N = 113) were assessed for functional performance and balance regularly over a nine-month period.”; “Balance scores predicted the occurrence of multiple falls among elderly residents”.
22. Shumway-Cook A, Brauer S, Woollacott M. Predicting the probability for falls in community-dwelling older adults using the Timed Up & Go Test (Physical Therapy, 2000;80(9):896-903, doi:10.1093/ptj/80.9.896, PMID 10960937; abstract read through the Europe PMC record). Checked October 30, 2026.
    Show the passageHide the passage

    “Fifteen older adults with no history of falls (mean age=78 years, SD=6, range=65-85) and 15 older adults with a history of 2 or more falls in the previous 6 months (mean age=86.2 years, SD=6, range=76-95) participated.”; “The TUG was found to be a sensitive (sensitivity=87%) and specific (specificity=87%) measure for identifying elderly individuals who are prone to falls.”
23. Wrisley DM, Kumar NA. Functional gait assessment: concurrent, discriminative, and predictive validity in community-dwelling older adults (Physical Therapy, 2010;90(5):761-773, doi:10.2522/ptj.20090069, PMID 20360052; abstract read through the Europe PMC record). Checked October 30, 2026.
    Show the passageHide the passage

    “Thirty-five older adults aged 60 to 90 years completed the Activities-specific Balance Confidence Scale (ABC), Berg Balance Scale (BBS), Dynamic Gait Index (DGI), Timed “Up & Go” Test (TUG), and Functional Gait Assessment (FGA) during one session.”; “Falls were tracked by having participants complete a monthly fall calendar for 6 months.”; “The FGA with a cutoff score of 22/30 is effective in classifying fall risk in older adults and predicting unexplained falls in community-dwelling older adults.”
24. Jones CJ, Rikli RE, Beam WC. A 30-s chair-stand test as a measure of lower body strength in community-residing older adults (Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 1999;70(2):113-119, doi:10.1080/02701367.1999.10608028, PMID 10380242; abstract read through the Europe PMC record). Checked October 30, 2026.
    Show the passageHide the passage

    “Seventy-six community-dwelling older adults (M age = 70.5 years) volunteered to participate in the study”; “Test-retest intraclass correlations of .84 for men and .92 for women”; “A moderately high correlation between chair-stand performance and maximum weight-adjusted leg-press performance for both men and women (r = .78 and .71, respectively) supports the criterion-related validity of the chair stand as a measure of lower body strength.”
25. Powell LE, Myers AM. The Activities-specific Balance Confidence (ABC) Scale (The Journals of Gerontology Series A, 1995;50A(1):M28-M34, doi:10.1093/gerona/50a.1.m28, PMID 7814786; abstract read through the Europe PMC record). Checked October 30, 2026.
    Show the passageHide the passage

    “Items for the newly developed 16-item ABC Scale were generated by 15 clinicians and 12 elderly outpatients.”; “Psychometric testing involved 60 community seniors (aged 65-95)”; “the greater item responsiveness of the ABC scale makes it more suitable to detect loss of balancing confidence in more highly functioning seniors.”
26. Lajoie Y, Gallagher SP. Predicting falls within the elderly community: comparison of postural sway, reaction time, the Berg balance scale and the Activities-specific Balance Confidence (ABC) scale for comparing fallers and non-fallers (Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics, 2004;38(1):11-26, doi:10.1016/S0167-4943(03)00082-7, PMID 14599700; abstract read through the Europe PMC record). Checked October 30, 2026.
    Show the passageHide the passage

    “One hundred and twenty-five subjects, 45 fallers and 80 non-fallers were evaluated throughout the study”; “non-fallers have significantly faster reaction times, have higher scores on the Berg balance scale and the ABC scale as well as sway at slower frequencies when compared to fallers.”

Medical disclaimer. This page is for general educational purposes and does not constitute medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. It is clinical reference information for licensed clinicians; it does not replace clinical judgment, the patient’s own presentation, or the licensing law of the clinician’s state. Each published cutoff applies to the population that produced it.