Reliability of the balance evaluation systems test (BESTest) and BESTest sections for adults with hemiparesis

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Rodrigues L.C.*
Data de Publicação: 2014
Outros Autores: Marques A.P.*, Barros P.B.*, Michaelsen S.M.*
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: Repositório Institucional da Udesc
dARK ID: ark:/33523/001300000p8fr
Texto Completo: https://repositorio.udesc.br/handle/UDESC/8599
Resumo: Background: The Balance Evaluation Systems Test (BESTest) was recently created to allow the development of treatments according to the specific balance system affected in each patient. The Brazilian version of the BESTest has not been specifically tested after stroke. Objective: To evaluate the intra- and inter-rater reliability and concurrent and convergent validity of the total score of the BESTest and BESTest sections for adults with hemiparesis after stroke. Method: The study included 16 subjects (61.1±7.5 years) with chronic hemiparesis (54.5±43.5 months after stroke). The BESTest was administered by two raters in the same week and one of the raters repeated the test after a one-week interval. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was calculated to assess intra- and interrater reliability. Concurrent validity with the Berg Balance Scale (BBS) and convergent validity with the Activities-specific Balance Confidence scale (ABC-Brazil) were assessed using Pearson's correlation coefficient. Results: Both the BESTest total score (ICC=0.98) and the BESTest sections (ICC between 0.85 and 0.96) have excellent intrarater reliability. Interrater reliability for the total score was excellent (ICC=0.93) and, for the sections, it ranged between 0.71 and 0.94. The correlation coefficient between the BESTest and the BBS and ABC-Brazil were 0.78 and 0.59, respectively. Conclusions: The Brazilian version of the BESTest demonstrated adequate reliability when measured by sections and could identify what balance system was affected in patients after stroke. Concurrent validity was excellent with the BBS total score and good to excellent with the sections. The total scores but not the sections present adequate convergent validity with the ABC-Brazil. However, other psychometric properties should be further investigated.
id UDESC-2_b08c87d6a3a3aebe5da0775e005703cc
oai_identifier_str oai:repositorio.udesc.br:UDESC/8599
network_acronym_str UDESC-2
network_name_str Repositório Institucional da Udesc
repository_id_str 6391
spelling Reliability of the balance evaluation systems test (BESTest) and BESTest sections for adults with hemiparesisBackground: The Balance Evaluation Systems Test (BESTest) was recently created to allow the development of treatments according to the specific balance system affected in each patient. The Brazilian version of the BESTest has not been specifically tested after stroke. Objective: To evaluate the intra- and inter-rater reliability and concurrent and convergent validity of the total score of the BESTest and BESTest sections for adults with hemiparesis after stroke. Method: The study included 16 subjects (61.1±7.5 years) with chronic hemiparesis (54.5±43.5 months after stroke). The BESTest was administered by two raters in the same week and one of the raters repeated the test after a one-week interval. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was calculated to assess intra- and interrater reliability. Concurrent validity with the Berg Balance Scale (BBS) and convergent validity with the Activities-specific Balance Confidence scale (ABC-Brazil) were assessed using Pearson's correlation coefficient. Results: Both the BESTest total score (ICC=0.98) and the BESTest sections (ICC between 0.85 and 0.96) have excellent intrarater reliability. Interrater reliability for the total score was excellent (ICC=0.93) and, for the sections, it ranged between 0.71 and 0.94. The correlation coefficient between the BESTest and the BBS and ABC-Brazil were 0.78 and 0.59, respectively. Conclusions: The Brazilian version of the BESTest demonstrated adequate reliability when measured by sections and could identify what balance system was affected in patients after stroke. Concurrent validity was excellent with the BBS total score and good to excellent with the sections. The total scores but not the sections present adequate convergent validity with the ABC-Brazil. However, other psychometric properties should be further investigated.2024-12-06T14:26:16Z2014info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/articlep. 276 - 2811809-924610.1590/bjpt-rbf.2014.0033https://repositorio.udesc.br/handle/UDESC/8599ark:/33523/001300000p8frBrazilian Journal of Physical Therapy183Rodrigues L.C.*Marques A.P.*Barros P.B.*Michaelsen S.M.*engreponame:Repositório Institucional da Udescinstname:Universidade do Estado de Santa Catarina (UDESC)instacron:UDESCinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess2024-12-07T20:58:02Zoai:repositorio.udesc.br:UDESC/8599Biblioteca Digital de Teses e Dissertaçõeshttps://pergamumweb.udesc.br/biblioteca/index.phpPRIhttps://repositorio-api.udesc.br/server/oai/requestri@udesc.bropendoar:63912024-12-07T20:58:02Repositório Institucional da Udesc - Universidade do Estado de Santa Catarina (UDESC)false
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Reliability of the balance evaluation systems test (BESTest) and BESTest sections for adults with hemiparesis
title Reliability of the balance evaluation systems test (BESTest) and BESTest sections for adults with hemiparesis
spellingShingle Reliability of the balance evaluation systems test (BESTest) and BESTest sections for adults with hemiparesis
Rodrigues L.C.*
title_short Reliability of the balance evaluation systems test (BESTest) and BESTest sections for adults with hemiparesis
title_full Reliability of the balance evaluation systems test (BESTest) and BESTest sections for adults with hemiparesis
title_fullStr Reliability of the balance evaluation systems test (BESTest) and BESTest sections for adults with hemiparesis
title_full_unstemmed Reliability of the balance evaluation systems test (BESTest) and BESTest sections for adults with hemiparesis
title_sort Reliability of the balance evaluation systems test (BESTest) and BESTest sections for adults with hemiparesis
author Rodrigues L.C.*
author_facet Rodrigues L.C.*
Marques A.P.*
Barros P.B.*
Michaelsen S.M.*
author_role author
author2 Marques A.P.*
Barros P.B.*
Michaelsen S.M.*
author2_role author
author
author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Rodrigues L.C.*
Marques A.P.*
Barros P.B.*
Michaelsen S.M.*
description Background: The Balance Evaluation Systems Test (BESTest) was recently created to allow the development of treatments according to the specific balance system affected in each patient. The Brazilian version of the BESTest has not been specifically tested after stroke. Objective: To evaluate the intra- and inter-rater reliability and concurrent and convergent validity of the total score of the BESTest and BESTest sections for adults with hemiparesis after stroke. Method: The study included 16 subjects (61.1±7.5 years) with chronic hemiparesis (54.5±43.5 months after stroke). The BESTest was administered by two raters in the same week and one of the raters repeated the test after a one-week interval. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was calculated to assess intra- and interrater reliability. Concurrent validity with the Berg Balance Scale (BBS) and convergent validity with the Activities-specific Balance Confidence scale (ABC-Brazil) were assessed using Pearson's correlation coefficient. Results: Both the BESTest total score (ICC=0.98) and the BESTest sections (ICC between 0.85 and 0.96) have excellent intrarater reliability. Interrater reliability for the total score was excellent (ICC=0.93) and, for the sections, it ranged between 0.71 and 0.94. The correlation coefficient between the BESTest and the BBS and ABC-Brazil were 0.78 and 0.59, respectively. Conclusions: The Brazilian version of the BESTest demonstrated adequate reliability when measured by sections and could identify what balance system was affected in patients after stroke. Concurrent validity was excellent with the BBS total score and good to excellent with the sections. The total scores but not the sections present adequate convergent validity with the ABC-Brazil. However, other psychometric properties should be further investigated.
publishDate 2014
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2014
2024-12-06T14:26:16Z
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 1809-9246
10.1590/bjpt-rbf.2014.0033
https://repositorio.udesc.br/handle/UDESC/8599
dc.identifier.dark.fl_str_mv ark:/33523/001300000p8fr
identifier_str_mv 1809-9246
10.1590/bjpt-rbf.2014.0033
ark:/33523/001300000p8fr
url https://repositorio.udesc.br/handle/UDESC/8599
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv Brazilian Journal of Physical Therapy
18
3
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv p. 276 - 281
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv reponame:Repositório Institucional da Udesc
instname:Universidade do Estado de Santa Catarina (UDESC)
instacron:UDESC
instname_str Universidade do Estado de Santa Catarina (UDESC)
instacron_str UDESC
institution UDESC
reponame_str Repositório Institucional da Udesc
collection Repositório Institucional da Udesc
repository.name.fl_str_mv Repositório Institucional da Udesc - Universidade do Estado de Santa Catarina (UDESC)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv ri@udesc.br
_version_ 1842258154889412608