Reliability, validity, and ability to identify fall status of the Balance Evaluation Systems Test, Mini–Balance Evaluation Systems Test, and Brief–Balance Evaluation systems est in Older people Living in the Community

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Marques, Alda
Publication Date: 2016
Other Authors: Carvalho, Joana, Almeida, Sara, Cruz, Joana, Oliveira, Ana, Jácome, Cristina
Format: Article
Language: eng
Source: Repositórios Científicos de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (RCAAP)
Download full: http://hdl.handle.net/10773/22113
Summary: To assess the reliability, validity, and ability to identify fall status of the Balance Evaluation Systems Test (BESTest), Mini-BESTest, and Brief-BESTest, compared with the Berg Balance Scale (BBS), in older people living in the community. Design Cross-sectional. Setting Community centers. Participants Older adults (N=122; mean age ± SD, 76±9y). Interventions Not applicable. Main Outcome Measures Participants reported on falls history in the preceding year and completed the Activities-Specific Balance Confidence (ABC) Scale. The BBS, BESTest, and the Five Times Sit-To-Stand Test were administered. Interrater (2 physiotherapists) and test-retest relative (48–72h) and absolute reliabilities were explored with the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) equation (2,1) and the Bland and Altman method. Minimal detectable changes at the 95% confidence level (MDC95) were established. Validity was assessed by correlating the balance tests with each other and with the ABC Scale (Spearman correlation coefficients–ρ). Receiver operating characteristics assessed the ability of each balance test to differentiate between people with and without a history of falls. Results All balance tests presented good to excellent interrater (ICC=.71–.93) and test-retest (ICC=.50–.82) relative reliability, with no evidence of bias. MDC95 values were 4.6, 9, 3.8, and 4.1 points for the BBS, BESTest, Mini-BESTest, and Brief-BESTest, respectively. All tests were significantly correlated with each other (ρ=.83–.96) and with the ABC Scale (ρ=.46–.61). Acceptable ability to identify fall status (areas under the curve,.71–.78) was found for all tests. Cutoff points were 48.5, 82, 19.5, and 12.5 points for the BBS, BESTest, Mini-BESTest, and Brief-BESTest, respectively. Conclusions All balance tests are reliable, valid, and able to identify fall status in older people living in the community. Therefore, the choice of which test to use will depend on the level of balance impairment, purpose, and time availability.
id RCAP_cfbfb5bd96d557911f6246e1c52f4e36
oai_identifier_str oai:ria.ua.pt:10773/22113
network_acronym_str RCAP
network_name_str Repositórios Científicos de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (RCAAP)
repository_id_str https://opendoar.ac.uk/repository/7160
spelling Reliability, validity, and ability to identify fall status of the Balance Evaluation Systems Test, Mini–Balance Evaluation Systems Test, and Brief–Balance Evaluation systems est in Older people Living in the CommunityPostural BalanceGeriatric assessmentRisk assessmentROC curveTo assess the reliability, validity, and ability to identify fall status of the Balance Evaluation Systems Test (BESTest), Mini-BESTest, and Brief-BESTest, compared with the Berg Balance Scale (BBS), in older people living in the community. Design Cross-sectional. Setting Community centers. Participants Older adults (N=122; mean age ± SD, 76±9y). Interventions Not applicable. Main Outcome Measures Participants reported on falls history in the preceding year and completed the Activities-Specific Balance Confidence (ABC) Scale. The BBS, BESTest, and the Five Times Sit-To-Stand Test were administered. Interrater (2 physiotherapists) and test-retest relative (48–72h) and absolute reliabilities were explored with the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) equation (2,1) and the Bland and Altman method. Minimal detectable changes at the 95% confidence level (MDC95) were established. Validity was assessed by correlating the balance tests with each other and with the ABC Scale (Spearman correlation coefficients–ρ). Receiver operating characteristics assessed the ability of each balance test to differentiate between people with and without a history of falls. Results All balance tests presented good to excellent interrater (ICC=.71–.93) and test-retest (ICC=.50–.82) relative reliability, with no evidence of bias. MDC95 values were 4.6, 9, 3.8, and 4.1 points for the BBS, BESTest, Mini-BESTest, and Brief-BESTest, respectively. All tests were significantly correlated with each other (ρ=.83–.96) and with the ABC Scale (ρ=.46–.61). Acceptable ability to identify fall status (areas under the curve,.71–.78) was found for all tests. Cutoff points were 48.5, 82, 19.5, and 12.5 points for the BBS, BESTest, Mini-BESTest, and Brief-BESTest, respectively. Conclusions All balance tests are reliable, valid, and able to identify fall status in older people living in the community. Therefore, the choice of which test to use will depend on the level of balance impairment, purpose, and time availability.W.B. Saunders2018-02-08T16:03:21Z2016-12-01T00:00:00Z2016-12-01info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/articleapplication/pdfhttp://hdl.handle.net/10773/22113eng0003-999310.1016/j.apmr.2016.07.011Marques, AldaCarvalho, JoanaAlmeida, SaraCruz, JoanaOliveira, AnaJácome, Cristinainfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessreponame:Repositórios Científicos de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (RCAAP)instname:FCCN, serviços digitais da FCT – Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologiainstacron:RCAAP2024-05-06T04:12:26Zoai:ria.ua.pt:10773/22113Portal AgregadorONGhttps://www.rcaap.pt/oai/openaireinfo@rcaap.ptopendoar:https://opendoar.ac.uk/repository/71602025-05-28T14:00:39.371288Repositórios Científicos de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (RCAAP) - FCCN, serviços digitais da FCT – Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologiafalse
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Reliability, validity, and ability to identify fall status of the Balance Evaluation Systems Test, Mini–Balance Evaluation Systems Test, and Brief–Balance Evaluation systems est in Older people Living in the Community
title Reliability, validity, and ability to identify fall status of the Balance Evaluation Systems Test, Mini–Balance Evaluation Systems Test, and Brief–Balance Evaluation systems est in Older people Living in the Community
spellingShingle Reliability, validity, and ability to identify fall status of the Balance Evaluation Systems Test, Mini–Balance Evaluation Systems Test, and Brief–Balance Evaluation systems est in Older people Living in the Community
Marques, Alda
Postural Balance
Geriatric assessment
Risk assessment
ROC curve
title_short Reliability, validity, and ability to identify fall status of the Balance Evaluation Systems Test, Mini–Balance Evaluation Systems Test, and Brief–Balance Evaluation systems est in Older people Living in the Community
title_full Reliability, validity, and ability to identify fall status of the Balance Evaluation Systems Test, Mini–Balance Evaluation Systems Test, and Brief–Balance Evaluation systems est in Older people Living in the Community
title_fullStr Reliability, validity, and ability to identify fall status of the Balance Evaluation Systems Test, Mini–Balance Evaluation Systems Test, and Brief–Balance Evaluation systems est in Older people Living in the Community
title_full_unstemmed Reliability, validity, and ability to identify fall status of the Balance Evaluation Systems Test, Mini–Balance Evaluation Systems Test, and Brief–Balance Evaluation systems est in Older people Living in the Community
title_sort Reliability, validity, and ability to identify fall status of the Balance Evaluation Systems Test, Mini–Balance Evaluation Systems Test, and Brief–Balance Evaluation systems est in Older people Living in the Community
author Marques, Alda
author_facet Marques, Alda
Carvalho, Joana
Almeida, Sara
Cruz, Joana
Oliveira, Ana
Jácome, Cristina
author_role author
author2 Carvalho, Joana
Almeida, Sara
Cruz, Joana
Oliveira, Ana
Jácome, Cristina
author2_role author
author
author
author
author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Marques, Alda
Carvalho, Joana
Almeida, Sara
Cruz, Joana
Oliveira, Ana
Jácome, Cristina
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Postural Balance
Geriatric assessment
Risk assessment
ROC curve
topic Postural Balance
Geriatric assessment
Risk assessment
ROC curve
description To assess the reliability, validity, and ability to identify fall status of the Balance Evaluation Systems Test (BESTest), Mini-BESTest, and Brief-BESTest, compared with the Berg Balance Scale (BBS), in older people living in the community. Design Cross-sectional. Setting Community centers. Participants Older adults (N=122; mean age ± SD, 76±9y). Interventions Not applicable. Main Outcome Measures Participants reported on falls history in the preceding year and completed the Activities-Specific Balance Confidence (ABC) Scale. The BBS, BESTest, and the Five Times Sit-To-Stand Test were administered. Interrater (2 physiotherapists) and test-retest relative (48–72h) and absolute reliabilities were explored with the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) equation (2,1) and the Bland and Altman method. Minimal detectable changes at the 95% confidence level (MDC95) were established. Validity was assessed by correlating the balance tests with each other and with the ABC Scale (Spearman correlation coefficients–ρ). Receiver operating characteristics assessed the ability of each balance test to differentiate between people with and without a history of falls. Results All balance tests presented good to excellent interrater (ICC=.71–.93) and test-retest (ICC=.50–.82) relative reliability, with no evidence of bias. MDC95 values were 4.6, 9, 3.8, and 4.1 points for the BBS, BESTest, Mini-BESTest, and Brief-BESTest, respectively. All tests were significantly correlated with each other (ρ=.83–.96) and with the ABC Scale (ρ=.46–.61). Acceptable ability to identify fall status (areas under the curve,.71–.78) was found for all tests. Cutoff points were 48.5, 82, 19.5, and 12.5 points for the BBS, BESTest, Mini-BESTest, and Brief-BESTest, respectively. Conclusions All balance tests are reliable, valid, and able to identify fall status in older people living in the community. Therefore, the choice of which test to use will depend on the level of balance impairment, purpose, and time availability.
publishDate 2016
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2016-12-01T00:00:00Z
2016-12-01
2018-02-08T16:03:21Z
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv http://hdl.handle.net/10773/22113
url http://hdl.handle.net/10773/22113
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv 0003-9993
10.1016/j.apmr.2016.07.011
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv W.B. Saunders
publisher.none.fl_str_mv W.B. Saunders
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv reponame:Repositórios Científicos de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (RCAAP)
instname:FCCN, serviços digitais da FCT – Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia
instacron:RCAAP
instname_str FCCN, serviços digitais da FCT – Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia
instacron_str RCAAP
institution RCAAP
reponame_str Repositórios Científicos de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (RCAAP)
collection Repositórios Científicos de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (RCAAP)
repository.name.fl_str_mv Repositórios Científicos de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (RCAAP) - FCCN, serviços digitais da FCT – Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia
repository.mail.fl_str_mv info@rcaap.pt
_version_ 1833594219095130112