Key numbers
30 sec
Systematic reference shown during the test, ages 18 to 34
20 sec
Systematic reference shown during the test, ages 35 to 55
15 sec
Systematic reference shown during the test, ages 56 to 110
549
Adults aged 18 to 99 in the Springer reference study
What Systematic recommends
Where to start
- Stand next to the wall or stable surface with bare feet flat on the ground. A fixed visual point directly in front of you to focus on. Reach to the wall with two fingertips, using only very light contact.
- Keep your eyes focused straight ahead on your chosen visual point. Keep the standing knee soft and active. Lift the inside foot approximately 6–12 inches off the ground. Stand tall throughout the hold. Breathe normally.
- 3 sets. Begin with a 10-second hold. Progress in 10-second increments. Work toward a 30-second hold. Use as little fingertip contact with the wall as you can comfortably control.
Condensed from the published Development Pathway (Single-Leg Balance: Two Finger Wall-Assist Tripod Stand). This is a starting point, not a training program or medical advice.
What the studies measured
Springer and colleagues published one-leg standing reference values, eyes open and eyes closed, for 549 adults aged 18 to 99. Tedeschi and colleagues studied single-limb stance in 120 healthy adults aged 30 to 65.
Neither study used the Systematic method. Springer's published result is the best of three trials, a different design from the Systematic test of one attempt on each side, so Systematic values are not Springer norms and Springer's best-of-three result and time ceiling are not applied to them. Tedeschi measured balance with force-platform indices, which are not Systematic time-to-failure norms either.
What changes with age
Both studies point the same way. Springer found a strong age-related decline in eyes-closed one-leg standing, and in Tedeschi's group balance worsened with age in the eyes-closed condition.
Neither found a sex difference: Springer reported no relationship between gender and performance, and Tedeschi found no significant sex effect. Tedeschi also found no significant effect of which leg was dominant.
Research on aging and leg proprioception also reports more co-contraction of opposing leg muscles with age, one of several changes in how older adults control posture.
The reference time you see during the test
The Systematic single-leg balance test is scored by age only, with no adjustment for sex or for which leg is dominant. Its age bands are 18 to 34, 35 to 55 and 56 to 110.
During the test you see one neutral reference time for your age: 30 seconds for 18 to 34, 20 seconds for 35 to 55 and 15 seconds for 56 to 110. Each is the functional anchor in the Systematic scoring for that band. These are Systematic standards, not published normative cutoffs, and your result is a physical baseline against them.
Published eyes-closed balance times (Springer 2007)
| Age (years) | Eyes-closed mean (s) | Eyes-closed best of 3 (s) |
|---|---|---|
| 18–39 | 9.4 | 15.2 |
| 40–49 | 7.3 | 12.7 |
| 50–59 | 4.8 | 8.3 |
| 60–69 | 2.8 | 4.4 |
| 70–79 | 2.0 | 3.1 |
| 80–99 | 1.3 | 1.9 |
Healthy adults (549 in all), eyes closed, three trials per condition: the mean of the three trials and the best of the three. Springer used a different protocol from Systematic's single attempt on each side, so these are published reference values, not Systematic red, yellow or green thresholds and not mortality-risk cutoffs.
One-leg balance and survival in older adults
A study of community-dwelling Taiwanese adults aged 65 or older compared fitness test results with all-cause mortality. Those in the highest fifth for one-leg stance had lower all-cause mortality than those in the lowest fifth (adjusted hazard ratio 0.50, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.59).
That is an association, not cause and effect. One-leg stance was one of four tests in that study with a clear highest-versus-lowest association (with up-and-go, chair stand and a two-minute step test); not all seven fitness components predicted mortality, and the study does not validate the different Systematic battery.
The evidence
Each cited source is labeled according to how it supports the particular claim on this page. Direct test evidence, underlying-capacity findings and population reference values are distinguished from Systematic-defined protocols and standards. Historical development notes are retained internally rather than presented as public evidence. A study of an underlying capacity is never presented as validation of the Systematic test itself.
-
Normative/reference evidence
Springer et al. (2007). Normative Values for the Unipedal Stance Test with Eyes Open and Closed. Journal of Geriatric Physical Therapy.
What it found. In 549 adults aged 18 to 99, eyes-closed one-leg standing declined strongly with age, with no relationship to gender.
What it does not show. Its best-of-three result and time ceiling come from a different design and are not Systematic standards.
-
Normative/reference evidence
Tedeschi et al. (2024). Assessment of Balance During a Single-Limb Stance Task in Healthy Adults: A Cross-Sectional Study. Perceptual and Motor Skills.
What it found. In 120 healthy adults aged 30 to 65, balance worsened with age with eyes closed; there was no significant effect of sex or of limb dominance.
What it does not show. Its force-platform indices are not time-to-failure norms for the Systematic test.
-
Underlying-capacity evidence
Henry et al. (2019). Age-related changes in leg proprioception: implications for postural control. Journal of Neurophysiology.
What it found. Reports more co-contraction of opposing leg muscles with age, among other changes in postural control.
What it does not show. It gives no seconds cutoff and does not validate the Systematic test.
-
Underlying-capacity evidence New source
Wu et al. (2026). Physical Fitness and All-Cause Mortality in Older Adults. JAMA network open.
What it found. In community-dwelling Taiwanese adults aged 65 or older, the highest fifth for one-leg stance had lower all-cause mortality than the lowest fifth (adjusted hazard ratio 0.50, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.59).
What it does not show. An association, not cause. Only four of its seven fitness components showed a clear association, and it does not validate the Systematic battery.
The Systematic Healthspan Assessment is a physical baseline. It is not a diagnosis, and it does not estimate a biological age, a disease risk or a lifespan.