ArticleBMC geriatrics2026
Psychometric properties, acceptability, and feasibility of the Stability, Agility, Strength (SAS) Mat for balance assessment with potential for training.
Article in BMC geriatrics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundExisting tests of tandem balance have several limitations, including limited sensitivity, floor and ceiling effects, and assistance-related bias. The Strength Agility Stability (SAS) Mat was developed to address these limitations and can be used as the SAS Measure of tandem balance, and a balance training tool. We assessed the Measure's test-retest reliability and concurrent validity, and the Mat's acceptability and feasibility as a balance assessment and training tool for healthy older adults.
methodsA convenience sample of 44 community-dwelling adults aged ≥ 65 years (mean age 72.59, SD 7.15), with independent mobility (± walking aid) and no severe medical conditions, completed two sessions 4-7 days apart. In session 1, participants completed the SAS Measure, the Four Stage Balance Test (FSBT), and Timed Up and Go Test (TUGT). In session 2, participants completed the SAS Measure and a survey about the SAS Mat as an assessment and potential training tool. Test-retest reliability and validity were measured with Intraclass and Spearman's correlation coefficients. Descriptive statistics were calculated for survey responses on perceived acceptability and feasibility of the SAS Mat.
resultsThe SAS Measure showed moderate test-retest reliability (Spearman's r = 0.71, p < 0.001, 95%CI: 0.51 to 0.83; ICC[3,1] = 0.65, p < 0.001, 95%CI: 0.43 to 0.80). Concurrent validity was good with the FSBT (r = 0.67, p < 0.001, 95%CI: 0.46 to 0.81) and acceptable with the TUGT (r=-0.42, p = 0.014, 95%CI: - 0.64 to - 0.14). Most participants rated the SAS Measure as "completely acceptable" (90%, 37/41), believed the SAS Mat would improve balance (79%, 33/42), and expressed confidence in home use for balance training (88%, 37/42).
conclusionPreliminary evidence supports the validity and reliability of the SAS Measure as an emerging balance assessment tool, with promising acceptability and feasibility for assessment and potential training use. Future research should investigate its effectiveness as a balance training tool.
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.