Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2014 Aug 26.
Published in final edited form as: Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2013 Mar 6;94(7):1300–1305. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2013.02.020

Table 3.

Average sensitivities and specificities calculations across 50 data imputations

Model 2 Model 1 Model 2
Average Maximum Minimum Average Maximum Minimum
Specificity 85.3 85.7 84.8 85.6 86.2 85.2
Sensitivity 54.3 55.4 53.6 54.6 55.4 54.1
Overall correct classification 73.9 74.2 73.5 74.8 74.9 74.5

NOTE. Model 1 examined the prediction of falls from the TUG test, adjusting for all study covariates, whereas model 2 examined whether the effect of the TUG test was invariant across H&Y levels (ie, an H&Y × TUG interaction was also included). The overall correct classification represents the percentage of the sample whose fall status was correctly classified.

Abbreviations: Sensitivity, percentage of fallers who were correctly identified; specificity, percentage of nonfallers who were correctly identified.