Conclusions Basic temporal and spatial parameters of gait at the preferred speed, i.e. During execution, the subjects carried two inertial sensors, one was placed at the level of L 5 -S 1 (lumbar) and the other in T 7 (trunk) (Figure 3 ). The regression model with these variables explained 26% of variance in the FRT outcomes. Functional reach test (FRT) or Duncan’s test (Duncan 1990) was performed. The FRT results correlated positively with the step length ( r = 0.61 and r = 0.54, for the preferred and fast speed, respectively), stride length ( r = 0.60 and r = 0.56, respectively), and velocity ( r = 0.37 and r = 0.38). The regression model with these variables explained 43% of variance in the TUG results (p ≤ 0.0001). Results The TUG results correlated inversely with the step length ( r = –0.70 and r = –0.61 for the preferred and fast speed, respectively), stride length ( r = –0.71 and r = –0.61, respectively), and velocity ( r = –0.69 and r = –0.38, respectively).

The participants’ functional fitness was evaluated with the TUG and FRT, and their temporal and spatial gait parameters – with the GAITRite system. Another disadvantage of the sit and reach test is finding appropriate normative data. This can skew results when measuring the flexibility of the lower back and hamstrings. Some people have longer torso’s, arms or legs than others. Methods The study included 60 healthy, physically active elderly people aged 70.4 ± 5.1 years. The third aim was to compare sitting balance results by the modified functional reach test (MFRT) to the Balance Master (BM), motor and function assessments. One of the disadvantages of the sit and reach test is that not everyone is of the same stature. Purpose The study aim was to analyse the relationships between the results of the Timed Up and Go (TUG) test and the Functional Reach Test (FRT), and the temporal and spatial gait parameters determined with the GAITRite system.