ArticleHealth science reports2026
The Four-Square Step Test With and Without Dual Tasks Among Older Adults With and Without a Fall History: A Retrospective Cohort Study.
Article in Health science reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The Four-Square Step Test With and Without Dual Tasks Among Older Adults With and Without a Fall History: A Retrospective Cohort Study.Health science reports · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Aim: As the global population of adults aged 65 and older increases, so does the prevalence of falls, which are the second leading cause of unintentional injury deaths worldwide, according to the World Health Organization. The Four-Square Step Test (FSST) is a widely used tool for assessing dynamic balance and mobility. The purpose of this study was to compare the use of the FSST and the FSST with dual task(s) (DT) for discriminating between older adult fallers and non-fallers by sex. Methods: Fifty community-dwelling older adults (35 females, 15 males) participated. Based on self-reported fall history, 28 were classified as non-fallers and 22 as fallers. Participants completed the FSST, FSST with a motor DT, and FSST with a cognitive DT. The area under the curve (AUC) of the receiver operating characteristic curve was calculated and used to compare the FSST conditions to determine the best condition among the three used for discriminating between faller and non-faller participants. Results: Among females, AUCs were 0.634 (FSST), 0.690 (motor DT), and 0.668 (cognitive DT). Among males, AUCs were 0.518 (FSST), 0.518 (motor DT), and 0.732 (cognitive DT). For all participants, cutoff scores for distinguishing fallers from non-fallers were approximately 10.07 s (FSST), 10.05 s (motor DT), and 13.22 s (cognitive DT). Conclusion: The FSST with a cognitive DT showed the highest overall accuracy in distinguishing fallers, particularly among males. The FSST with a motor DT demonstrated better discriminative performance than the standard FSST in females, while both test conditions were equivalent in males. Identified cutoff scores were approximately 13 s for the cognitive dual task and 10 s for both the standard and motor dual task conditions. These findings support the potential clinical utility of incorporating cognitive or motor dual tasks into the FSST, particularly for sex-specific fall risk assessment in community-dwelling older adults.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.