## 4 Discussion
in their functional gait reference data for healthy individuals at different age levels, found that persons aged 70 to 89 years scored lower on item 1, which may be explained by the lower speed that the elderly present [15]. Indeed, [PERSON] et al. at a very recent report of gait speed values in Western European community-dwelling older adults, confirmed that gait speed was lower with older age [56]. The most pronounced decline in gait velocity is observed at 71 years, which is very close to the mean age of our sample [57]. Additionally, the decline in walking speed with age has been found to be associated with balance impairment in the elderly [58]. This could explain the low association of items 6 and 10 with the total score. Both of these items require increased stability on one leg stance in order to overcome an obstacle or to step on a stair with the other leg. These balance demanding tasks may reflect a disproportionate execution compared to the overall good performance. The moderate internal consistency for the FGAGR scale is in contrast to the original version of the scale and to the Brazilian adaptation, where the internal consistency was found to be relatively good with [PERSON]'s alpha coefficient of 0.79 and 0.85, respectively [14; 25]. These differences may be explained either to different populations (i.e., the original scale was tested on patients with vestibular problems) or to different sample sizes (the Brazilian adaptation had a bigger sample of 70 elderly individuals). These differences may also be explained by the variability in single items reliability, mentioned above, which indicate inhomogeneity when balance and speed demanding tasks are included. The FGAGR also yielded moderate to high correlations with the mini-BESTest, BBS, TUG, and FES-I, indicating the concurrent validity of the scale in Greek older adults. This is the first cross-cultural adaptation of the FGA scale that correlates with the mini-BESTest. The mini-BESTest, which emphasizes both static and dynamic balance during walking, has proven to be one of the most valid and reliable scales for assessing balance and has been studied for its validity in various populations [33; 59]. It has been highly correlated with other balance and gait assessment instruments, such as the BBS [32] and TUG [60], and can in turn be used to validate other instruments such as the FGA scale. The high correlation of the FGAGR with a scale considered to be one of the most valid in dynamic balance assessment, such as the mini-BESTest, provides evidence for the validity of the adapted scale. It is, of course, necessary to correlate it with other scales, which purely evaluate walking before clear conclusions can be drawn. The low correlation of the FGAGR scale with the FES-I concern of falling questionnaire cannot be compared with similar studies because there is no research that purely correlates the FGA with the FES-I. This may be because the FGA scale is a fairly new assessment tool in the clinical arena. Nevertheless, there are studies that compare the FES-I with other scales such as the BBS where the results showed a negative correlation as in the present study [61; 62]. The negative correlation is justified because the better balance a person has, the lower the concern about falling. The moderate correlation may be explained by the diversity of the scales, as one records the patient's subjective perception of his balance and fear of falling, while the other is an objective means of recording performance in balanced gait activities. In addition, the FGAGR yielded a predictive validity in identifying the risk of falling at a cutoff score of 25/30. This cutoff score presented a sensitivity of 84% and specificity of 100%. Taking this cutoff point into consideration in our study, the FGAGR identified 16/19 individuals with risk for falls and all 3 without risk for falls. This cutoff score is different from the 22/30 proposed by [PERSON] et al. and [PERSON] et al. when the scale was administered to elderly people [16; 61].