Is the BESTest at Its Best? A Suggested Brief Version Based on Interrater Reliability, Validity, Internal Consistency, and Theoretical Construct

Author:

Padgett Parminder K.1,Jacobs Jesse V.2,Kasser Susan L.3

Affiliation:

1. P.K. Padgett, DPT, Department of Rehabilitation and Movement Science, University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont.

2. J.V. Jacobs, PhD, Department of Rehabilitation and Movement Science, University of Vermont, 305 Rowell Bldg, 106 Carrigan Dr, Burlington, VT 05405 (USA).

3. S.L. Kasser, PhD, Department of Rehabilitation and Movement Science, University of Vermont.

Abstract

BackgroundThe Balance Evaluation Systems Test (BESTest) and Mini-BESTest are clinical examinations of balance impairment, but the tests are lengthy and the Mini-BESTest is theoretically inconsistent with the BESTest.ObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to generate an alternative version of the BESTest that is valid, reliable, time efficient, and founded upon the same theoretical underpinnings as the original test.DesignThis was a cross-sectional study.MethodsThree raters evaluated 20 people with and without a neurological diagnosis. Test items with the highest item-section correlations defined the new Brief-BESTest. The validity of the BESTest, the Mini-BESTest, and the new Brief-BESTest to identify people with or without a neurological diagnosis was compared. Interrater reliability of the test versions was evaluated by intraclass correlation coefficients. Validity was further investigated by determining the ability of each version of the examination to identify the fall status of a second cohort of 26 people with and without multiple sclerosis.ResultsItems of hip abductor strength, functional reach, one-leg stance, lateral push-and-release, standing on foam with eyes closed, and the Timed “Up & Go” Test defined the Brief-BESTest. Intraclass correlation coefficients for all examination versions were greater than .98. The accuracy of identifying people from the first cohort with or without a neurological diagnosis was 78% for the BESTest versus 72% for the Mini-BESTest or Brief-BESTest. The sensitivity to fallers from the second cohort was 100% for the Brief-BESTest, 71% for the Mini-BESTest, and 86% for the BESTest, and all versions exhibited specificity of 95% to 100% to identify nonfallers.LimitationsFurther testing is needed to improve the generalizability of findings.ConclusionsAlthough preliminary, the Brief-BESTest demonstrated reliability comparable to that of the Mini-BESTest and potentially superior sensitivity while requiring half the items of the Mini-BESTest and representing all theoretically based sections of the original BESTest.

Publisher

Oxford University Press (OUP)

Subject

Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation

Reference42 articles.

1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. Web-based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System (WISQARS). 2005. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/wisqars. Accessed March 24, 2010.

2. Reducing falls in elderly people: a review of exercise interventions;Brown;Physiother Theory Pract,1999

3. Performance-oriented assessment of mobility problems in elderly patients;Tinetti;J Am Geriatrics Soc,1986

4. The costs of fatal and nonfatal falls among older adults;Stevens;Inj Prev,2006

5. Falls, injuries due to falls, and the risk of admission to a nursing home;Tinetti;N Engl J Med,1997

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3