ArticleGeroScience2026
Design and test-retest reliability of a new test to assess motor competence in healthy older adults.
Article in GeroScience, 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.
- Measuring Motor Competence in Mid-Adulthood: A Reliable Holistic Test (HOLMOT) Sensitive to Sex and Age Differences.Journal of functional morphology and kinesiology · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The objective of this study was to design and analyze the test-retest reliability of a test to assess holistic motor competence in older adults (HMCT-OA), as well as the capacity of this test to discriminate between sex and age. A total of 239 older adults (age = 72.44 ± 5.93 years old) joined in this study. The test was divided into motor cognitive section, locomotor section, and manipulative section. Each section and the total time to complete the test was registered. Intraclass correlation coefficient analysis showed 0.997 (95% CI = 0.996-0.998; p < 0.001) for the total test. Also, a strong correlation between the total test and each section was found. No significant differences between sexes were found; however, the participants over 80 years old showed worse performance. The HMCT-OA showed excellent test-retest reliability parameters for older adults. The test is safe, easy to set up, and was also able to discriminate per age in healthy older adults.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.