Checks and balances: a meta-analysis on the known-groups validity of functional postural control tests in children.
Jorn Ockerman, Silke Velghe, Anke VAN Bladel and 5 others
PMID 38842066WHAT IT FOUND
Test batteries like the Pediatric Balance Scale best distinguish children with postural deficits from typical peers, while single tasks like the Functional Reach Test often miss them.
However, evidence quality is low for all tests, so no single tool is definitive without clinical judgment.
Key findings
01Children with motor difficulties performed 2 standard deviations poorer on test batteries than their typically developing peers.
02Functional reach tests showed a much smaller difference, with approximately 50% of cases performing similarly to typically developing children.
03None of the included functional postural control tests exceeded a low level of evidence.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTsWhat it means for OTs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
All included studies had low or acceptable quality, and none exceeded a low level of evidence. High heterogeneity between studies meant that pooled results varied widely, especially for the Timed Up and Go and One Leg Stance tests. The analysis excluded digital measures like posturography, limiting the scope to clinical functional tests. Most studies did not compare groups to normative data, only to age-matched controls, which limits direct applicability of reference ranges.
Declared interests
The authors certify that there is no conflict of interest.
The easy way to misread this
Do not rely on a single functional test like the Reach Test to rule out a postural deficit, as it failed to identify half of the children with known pathologies in this review.