## 4 Discussion
Our study presented larger specificity compared to other studies and had no false positive cases, which is more important than having false negative cases [16]. The differences with the other studies may be due to different assessment tools used for the ROC analysis. In the study of [PERSON] et al., the discrimination between fallers and non-fallers was used, while in the study of [PERSON] et al.,the TUG score of 11 s, classified as having increased risk for falls, was used [16; 26]. However, both studies present the same area under the curve (AUC) of 0.92 with our study indicating the ability of both the original and the Greek scale to identify individuals with high risk for future falls. This ability of the scale is another benefit in the falls prevention campaign because providing early intervention may prevent the complications from falls in the elderly, such as morbidity and mortality, reduced functionality, as well as mental and emotional negative effects [63]. In addition, the absence of the scale to exhibit a ceiling or floor effect in this population as well as its low standard error in measurements support the utility of the FGAGR scale in assessing balance and postural stability during gait. The mean detectable change of 1.56 points could be another indicator for improvement of the functional status of a patient following a rehabilitation program which has a clinical value and importance. The literature lacks such information; therefore, no comparisons with other studies can be carried out. However, the ability of the scale to identify changes in the walking ability of older adults as well as its discriminant ability to classify individuals who had high concern about falls are both excellent characteristics of the scale. The fear of falling usually prevents older adults from participating in favorite activities and hobbies, regardless of whether they fall or not [64]. Given its high prevalence and harmful consequences [65], having a scale which could identify those individuals with high concern for falls, would lead clinicians to modify their rehabilitation program in order to improve balance and confidence in the elderly. The major strengths of the present study were the establishment of the reliability and validity of the scale as well as the cutoff score of identifying individuals with high risk of falling and the minimum detectable change in the score of the scale. However, this study is not without limitations. A disproportionate sample in regards to the size of women compared to men could be a limitation of the study. Due to this difference, we made further analysis to reassure that the gender did not have any effect on our results. Our results did agree with the reports of [PERSON] et al. as well with the results of [PERSON] et al., who both found that gender is not a significant predictor of functional performance and that it does not cause differences in performance at any age tested [15; 66]. The lack of a third rater mentioned in several corresponding studies [54; 67] could be considered as another limitation. A third party evaluation through videotaped sessions could enhance the results; however, the use of videotaped activities does not always convey the correct dimensions and levels of exercise performance, and thus distorting the image of the true performance of an activity.