European Journal of Trauma and Emergency Surgery

, Volume 42, Issue 5, pp 537–545 | Cite as

The Aachen Mobility and Balance Index to measure physiological falls risk: a comparison with the Tinetti POMA Scale

  • M. KnobeEmail author
  • M. Giesen
  • S. Plate
  • G. Gradl-Dietsch
  • B. Buecking
  • D. Eschbach
  • W. van Laack
  • H.-C. Pape
Original Article



The most commonly used mobility assessments for screening risk of falls among older adults are rating scales such as the Tinetti performance oriented mobility assessment (POMA). However, its correlation with falls is not always predictable and disadvantages of the scale include difficulty to assess many of the items on a 3-point scale and poor specificity. The purpose of this study was to describe the ability of the new Aachen Mobility and Balance Index (AMBI) to discriminate between subjects with a fall history and subjects without such events in comparison to the Tinetti POMA Scale.


For this prospective cohort study, 24 participants in the study group and 10 in the control group were selected from a population of patients in our hospital who had met the stringent inclusion criteria. Both groups completed the Tinetti POMA Scale (gait and balance component) and the AMBI (tandem stance, tandem walk, ten-meter-walk-test, sit-to-stand with five repetitions, 360° turns, timed-up-and-go-test and measurement of the dominant hand grip strength). A history of falls and hospitalization in the past year were evaluated retrospectively. The relationships among the mobility tests were examined with Bland–Altmananalysis. Receiver-operated characteristics curves, sensitivity and specificity were calculated.


The study showed a strong negative correlation between the AMBI (17 points max., highest fall risk) and Tinetti POMA Scale (28 points max., lowest fall risk; r = −0.78, p < 0.001) with an excellent discrimination between community-dwelling older people and a younger control group. However, there were no differences in any of the mobility and balance measurements between participants with and without a fall history with equal characteristics in test comparison (AMBI vs. Tinetti POMA Scale: AUC 0.570 vs. 0.598; p = 0.762). The Tinetti POMA Scale (cut-off <20 points) showed a sensitivity of 0.45 and a specificity of 0.69, the AMBI a sensitivity of 0.64 and a specificity of 0.46 (cut-off >5 points).


The AMBI comprises mobility and balance tasks with increasing difficulty as well as a measurement of the dominant hand-grip strength. Its ability to identify fallers was comparable to the Tinetti POMA Scale. However, both measurement sets showed shortcomings in discrimination between fallers and non-fallers based on a self-reported retrospective falls-status.


Ground-level falls Co-managed care Elderly Fall prevention Mobility tests Mobility Balance Tinetti test 


Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Matthias Knobe, Meike Giesen, Sarah Plate, Gertraud Gradl-Dietsch, Benjamin Bücking, Daphne Eschbach, Walter van Laack, and Hans-Christoph Pape declare that they have no competing interests. No funds were received by any of the authors in support of this study.

Ethical approval

This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board at the RWTH Aachen University (Ethical Approval EK 171/14).

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from each participant and participation was voluntary.


  1. 1.
    Moore L, Turgeon AF, Sirois MJ, Lavoie A. Trauma centre outcome performance: a comparison of young adults and geriatric patients in an inclusive trauma system. Injury. 2012;43(9):1580–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Vlaeyen E, Deschodt M, Debard G, Dejaeger E, Boonen S, Goedemé T, Vanrumste B, Milisen K. Fall incidents unraveled: a series of 26 video-based real-life fall events in three frail older persons. BMC Geriatr. 2013;13:103.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Liem IS, Kammerlander C, Suhm N, Blauth M, Roth T, Gosch M, Hoang-Kim A, Mendelson D, Zuckerman J, Leung F, Burton J, Moran C, Parker M, Giusti A, Pioli G, Goldhahn J, Kates SL. Investigation performed with the assistance of the AOTrauma network: identifying a standard set of outcome parameters for the evaluation of orthogeriatric co-management for hip fractures. Injury. 2013;44(11):1403–12.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kammerlander C, Gosch M, Blauth M, Lechleitner M, Luger TJ, Roth T. The tyrolean geriatric fracture center: an orthogeriatric co-management model. Z Gerontol Geriatr. 2011;44(6):363–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bielza Galindo R, Ortiz Espada A, Arias Muñana E, Velasco Guzmán de Lázaro R, Mora Casado A, Moreno Martín R, Tapia Salinas B, Escalera Alonso J, Gómez Cerezo J. Opening of an acute orthogeriatric unit in a general hospital. Rev Esp Geriatr Gerontol. 2013;48(1):26–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Patel NK, Sarraf KM, Joseph S, Lee C, Middleton FR. Implementing the national hip fracture database: an audit of care. Injury. 2013;44(12):1934–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ungar A, Rafanelli M, Iacomelli I, Brunetti MA, Ceccofiglio A, Tesi F, Marchionni N. Fall prevention in the elderly. Clin Cases Miner Bone Metab. 2013;10(2):91–5.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Tinetti ME, Kumar C. The patient who falls: it’s always a trade-off. JAMA. 2010;303(3):258–66.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gates S, Smith LA, Fisher JD, Lamb SE. Systematic review of accuracy of screening instruments for predicting fall risk among independently living older adults. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2008;45(8):1105–16.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    American Geriatrics Society. British geriatrics society, American cademy of orthopaedic surgeons panel on falls prevention. Guideline for the prevention of falls in older persons. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2001;49(5):664–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Nevitt M, Cummings S, Kidd S, Black D. Risk factors for recurrent non-syncopal falls. JAMA. 1989;261:2663–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Berg KO, Maki BE, Williams JI, Holliday PJ, Wood-Dauphinee SL. Clinical and laboratory measures of postural balance in an elderly population. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1992;73:1073–80.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Tinetti ME. Performance-oriented assessment of mobility problems in elderly patients. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1986;34:119–26.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Chiu AY, Au-Yeung SS, Lo SK. A comparison of four functional tests in discriminating fallers from non-fallers in older people. Disabil Rehabil. 2003;25:45–50.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Tiedemann A, Shimada H, Sherrington C, Murray S, Lord S. The comparative ability of eight functional mobility tests for predicting falls in community-dwelling older people. Age Ageing. 2008;37(4):430–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kopke S, Meyer G. The Tinetti test: babylon in geriatric assessment. Z Gerontol Geriatr. 2006;39(4):288–91.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Singh DK, Pillai SG, Tan ST, Tai CC, Shahar S. Association between physiological falls risk and physical performance tests among community-dwelling older adults. Clin Interv Aging. 2015;13(10):1319–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Yelnik A, Bonan I. Clinical tools for assessing balance disorders. Neurophysiol Clin. 2008;38:439–45.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Alexandre TS, Meira DM, Rico NC, Mizuta SK. Accuracy of timed up and go test for screening risk of falls among community-dwelling elderly. Rev Bras Fisioter. 2012;16(5):381–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Panzer VP, Wakefield DB, Hall CB, Wolfson LI. Mobility assessment: sensitivity and specificity of measurement sets in older adults. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2011;92(6):905–12.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    American Geriatrics Society. Guidelines for the prevention of falls in older persons. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2001;49(5):664–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ferrucci L, Guralnik JM, Studenski S, Fried LP, Cutler GB Jr. Interventions on frailty working group. designing randomized, controlled trials aimed at preventing or delaying functional decline and disability in frail, older persons. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2004;52:625–34.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Folstein MF, Folstein SE, McHugh PR. Mini-mental state a practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. J Psychiatr Res. 1975;12:189–98.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Stel VS, Pluijm SM, Deeg DJ, Smit JH, Bouter M, Lips P. A classification tree for predicting recurrent falling in community-dwelling older persons. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2003;51(10):1356–64.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Murphy MA, Olson SL, Protas EJ, Overby AR. Screening for falls in community-dwelling elderly. J Aging Phys Act. 2003;11:66–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Gardner MM, Buchner DM, Robertson MC, Campbell AJ. Practical implementation of an exercise-based falls prevention programme. Age Ageing. 2001;30(1):77–83.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Chu LW, Pei CK, Chiu A, Liu K, Chu MM, Wong S, Wong A. Risk factors for falls in hospitalized older medical patients. J Gerontol Biol Sci. 1999;54:M38–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Dargent-Molina P, Favier F, Grandjean H, Baudoin C, Schott AM, Hausherr E, Meunier PJ, Bréart G. Fall-related factors and risk of hip fracture: the EPIDOS prospective study. Lancet. 1996;348:145–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Imms FJ, Edholm OG. Studies of gait and mobility in the elderly. Age Ageing. 1981;10:147–56.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    der Weil Bootsma-van. A, Gussekloo J, de Craen AJM, Van Exel E, Bloem BR, Westendorp RG. Common chronic diseases and general impairments as determinants of walking disability in the oldest-old population. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2002;50:1405–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Podsialdo D, Richardson S. The timed up and go: a test of basic functional mobility for frail elderly persons. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1991;39:142–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Piotrowski A, Cole J. Clinical measures of balance and functional assessment in elderly persons. Aust J Physiother. 1994;40:183–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Csuka M, McCarty DJ. Simple method for measurement of lower extremity muscle strength. Am J Med. 1985;78:77–81.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Campbell AJ, Borrie MJ, Spears GF. Risk factors for falls in a community-based prospective study of people 70 years and older. J Gerontol. 1989;44:M112–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Whitney SL, Wrisley DM, Marchetti GF, Gee MA, Redfern MS, Furman JM. Clinical measurement of sit-to-stand performance in people with balance disorders: validity of data for the five-times-sit-to-stand test. Phys Ther. 2005;85(10):1034–45.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Berg K, Wood-Dauphinee S, Williams JI, Maki B. Measuring balance in the elderly: preliminary development of an instrument. Physiother Can. 1989;41:304–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Viccaro LJ, Perera S, Studenski SA. Is timed up and go better than gait speed in predicting health, function, and falls in older adults? J Am Geriatr Soc. 2011;59:887–92.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Leong DP, Teo KK, Rangarajan S, Lopez-Jaramillo P, Avezum A Jr, Orlandini A, Seron P, Ahmed SH, Rosengren A, Kelishadi R, Rahman O, Swaminathan S, Iqbal R, Gupta R, Lear SA, Oguz A, Yusoff K, Zatonska K, Chifamba J, Igumbor E, Mohan V, Anjana RM, Gu H, Li W, Yusuf S. Prospective urban rural epidemiology (PURE) study investigators. Prognostic value of grip strength: findings from the prospective urban rural epidemiology (PURE) study. Lancet. 2015;386(9990):266–73.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Mathiowetz V, Kashman N, Volland G, Weber K, Dowe M, Rogers S. Grip and pinch strength: normative data for adults. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1985;66(2):69–74.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Kegelmeyer DA, Kloos AD, Thomas KM, Kostyk SK. Reliability and validity of the Tinetti mobility test for individuals with Parkinson disease. Phys Ther. 2007;87(10):1369–78.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Baker DI, King MB, Fortinsky FH, Graff LG, Gottschalk M, Acampora D, Preston J, Brown CJ, Tineti ME. Dissemination of an evidence-based multi-component fall risk assessment and management strategy throughout a geographic area. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2005;53(4):675–80.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Raîche M, Hébert R, Prince F, Corriveau H. Screening older adults at risk of falling with the Tinetti balance scale. Lancet. 2000;356(9234):1001–2.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Pape HC, Schemmann U, Foerster J, Knobe M. The aachen falls prevention scale-development of a tool for self-assessment of elderly patients at risk for ground level falls. Patient Saf Surg. 2015;14(9):7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Knobe
    • 1
    Email author
  • M. Giesen
    • 1
  • S. Plate
    • 1
  • G. Gradl-Dietsch
    • 1
  • B. Buecking
    • 2
  • D. Eschbach
    • 2
  • W. van Laack
    • 3
  • H.-C. Pape
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Orthopaedic TraumaUniversity of Aachen Medical CenterAachenGermany
  2. 2.Department of Trauma, Hand and Reconstructive SurgeryUniversity Hospital Gießen and Marburg GmbHMarburgGermany
  3. 3.Aachen University of Applied SciencesAachenGermany

Personalised recommendations