Dataset Information

Reliability and validity of the Balance Evaluation Systems Test (BESTest) in people with subacute stroke.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The Balance Evaluation Systems Test (BESTest) is a new clinical balance assessment tool, but it has never been validated in patients with subacute stroke.

Objective

The purpose of this study was to examine the reliability and validity of the BESTest in patients with subacute stroke.

Design

This was an observational reliability and validity study.

Methods

Twelve patients participated in the interrater and intrarater reliability study. Convergent validity was investigated in 70 patients using the Berg Balance Scale (BBS), Postural Assessment Scale for Stroke (PASS), Community Balance and Mobility Scale (CB&M), and Mini-BESTest. The receiver operating characteristic curve was used to calculate the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of the BESTest, Mini-BESTest, and BBS in classifying participants into low functional ability (LFA) and high functional ability (HFA) groups based on Fugl-Meyer Assessment motor subscale scores.

Results

The BESTest showed excellent intrarater reliability and interrater reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient=.99) and was highly correlated with the BBS (Spearman r=.96), PASS (r=.96), CB&M (r=.91), and Mini-BESTest (r=.96), indicating excellent convergent validity. No floor or ceiling effects were observed with the BESTest. In contrast, the Mini-BESTest and CB&M had a floor effect in the LFA group, and the BBS and PASS demonstrated responsive ceiling effects in the HFA group. In addition, the BESTest showed high accuracy as the BBS and Mini-BESTest in separating participants into HFA and LFA groups.

Limitation

Whether the results are generalizable to patients with chronic stroke is unknown.

Conclusion

The BESTest is reliable, valid, sensitive, and specific in assessing balance in people with subacute stroke across all levels of functional disability.

SUBMITTER: Chinsongkram B

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6281049 | biostudies-literature | 2014 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Reliability and validity of the Balance Evaluation Systems Test (BESTest) in people with subacute stroke.

Chinsongkram Butsara B Chaikeeree Nithinun N Saengsirisuwan Vitoon V Viriyatharakij Nitaya N Horak Fay B FB Boonsinsukh Rumpa R

Physical therapy 20140612 11

<h4>Background</h4>The Balance Evaluation Systems Test (BESTest) is a new clinical balance assessment tool, but it has never been validated in patients with subacute stroke.<h4>Objective</h4>The purpose of this study was to examine the reliability and validity of the BESTest in patients with subacute stroke.<h4>Design</h4>This was an observational reliability and validity study.<h4>Methods</h4>Twelve patients participated in the interrater and intrarater reliability study. Convergent validity wa ...[more]

PMID: 24925073

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:The reliability and convergent validity of the Balance Evaluation Systems Test (BESTest) in people with subacute stroke have been established, but its responsiveness to rehabilitation has not been examined. OBJECTIVE:The study objective was to compare the responsiveness of the BESTest with those of other clinical balance tools in people with subacute stroke. DESIGN:This was a prospective cohort study. METHODS:Forty-nine people with subacute stroke (mean age=57.8 years, SD=11.8) participated in this study. Five balance measures-the BESTest, the Mini-BESTest, the Berg Balance Scale, the Postural Assessment Scale for Stroke Patients, and the Community Balance and Mobility Scale (CB&M)-were used to measure balance performance before and after rehabilitation or before discharge from the hospital, whichever came first. The internal responsiveness of each balance measure was classified with the standardized response mean (SRM); changes in Berg Balance Scale scores of greater than 7 were used as the external standard for determining the external responsiveness. Analysis of the receiver operating characteristic curve was used to determine the accuracy and cutoff scores for identifying participants with balance improvement. RESULTS:Participants received 13.7 days (SD=9.3, range=5-44) of physical therapy rehabilitation. The internal responsiveness of all balance measures, except for the CB&M, was high (SRM=0.9-1.2). The BESTest had a higher SRM than the Mini-BESTest and the CB&M, indicating that the BESTest was more sensitive for detecting balance changes than the Mini-BESTest and the CB&M. In addition, compared with other balance measures, the BESTest had no floor, ceiling, or responsive ceiling effects. The results also indicated that the percentage of participants with no change in scores after rehabilitation was smaller with the BESTest than with the Mini-BESTest and the CB&M. With regard to the external responsiveness, the BESTest had higher accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and posttest accuracy than the Postural Assessment Scale for Stroke Patients and the CB&M for identifying participants with balance improvement. Changes in BESTest scores of 10% or more indicated changes in balance performance. LIMITATIONS:A limitation of this study was the difference in the time periods between the first and the second assessments across participants. CONCLUSIONS:The BESTest was the most sensitive scale for assessing balance recovery in participants with subacute stroke because of its high internal and external responsiveness and lack of floor and ceiling effects.

Project description:BackgroundCurrent clinical balance assessment tools do not aim to help therapists identify the underlying postural control systems responsible for poor functional balance. By identifying the disordered systems underlying balance control, therapists can direct specific types of intervention for different types of balance problems.ObjectiveThe goal of this study was to develop a clinical balance assessment tool that aims to target 6 different balance control systems so that specific rehabilitation approaches can be designed for different balance deficits. This article presents the theoretical framework, interrater reliability, and preliminary concurrent validity for this new instrument, the Balance Evaluation Systems Test (BESTest).DesignThe BESTest consists of 36 items, grouped into 6 systems: "Biomechanical Constraints," "Stability Limits/Verticality," "Anticipatory Postural Adjustments," "Postural Responses," "Sensory Orientation," and "Stability in Gait."MethodsIn 2 interrater trials, 22 subjects with and without balance disorders, ranging in age from 50 to 88 years, were rated concurrently on the BESTest by 19 therapists, students, and balance researchers. Concurrent validity was measured by correlation between the BESTest and balance confidence, as assessed with the Activities-specific Balance Confidence (ABC) Scale.ResultsConsistent with our theoretical framework, subjects with different diagnoses scored poorly on different sections of the BESTest. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for interrater reliability for the test as a whole was .91, with the 6 section ICCs ranging from .79 to .96. The Kendall coefficient of concordance among raters ranged from .46 to 1.00 for the 36 individual items. Concurrent validity of the correlation between the BESTest and the ABC Scale was r=.636, P<.01.LimitationsFurther testing is needed to determine whether: (1) the sections of the BESTest actually detect independent balance deficits, (2) other systems important for balance control should be added, and (3) a shorter version of the test is possible by eliminating redundant or insensitive items.ConclusionsThe BESTest is easy to learn to administer, with excellent reliability and very good validity. It is unique in allowing clinicians to determine the type of balance problems to direct specific treatments for their patients. By organizing clinical balance test items already in use, combined with new items not currently available, the BESTest is the most comprehensive clinical balance tool available and warrants further development.

Project description:BACKGROUND:The majority of stroke survivors experiences significant hand impairments, as weakness and spasticity, with a severe impact on the activity of daily living. To objectively evaluate hand deficits, quantitative measures are needed. The aim of this study is to assess the reliability, the validity and the discriminant ability of the instrumental measures provided by a robotic device for hand rehabilitation, in a sample of patients with subacute stroke. MATERIAL AND METHODS:In this study, 120 patients with stroke and 40 controls were enrolled. Clinical evaluation included finger flexion and extension strength (using the Medical Research Council, MRC), finger spasticity (using the Modified Ashworth Scale, MAS) and motor control and dexterity during ADL performance (by means of the Frenchay Arm Test, FAT). Robotic evaluations included finger flexion and extension strength, muscle tone at rest, and instrumented MAS and Modified Tardieu Scale. Subjects were evaluated twice, one day apart, to assess the test-retest reliability of the robotic measures, using the Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC). To estimate the response stability, the standard errors of measurement and the minimum detectable change (MDC) were also calculated. Validity was assessed by analyzing the correlations between the robotic metrics and the clinical scales, using the Spearman's Correlation Coefficient (r). Finally, we investigated the ability of the robotic measures to distinguish between patients with stroke and healthy subjects, by means of Mann-Whitney U tests. RESULTS:All the investigated measures were able to discriminate patients with stroke from healthy subjects (p < 0.001). Test-retest reliability was found to be excellent for finger strength (in both flexion and extension) and muscle tone, with ICCs higher than 0.9. MDCs were equal to 10.6 N for finger flexion, 3.4 N for finger extension, and 14.3 N for muscle tone. Conversely, test-retest reliability of the spasticity measures was poor. Finally, finger strength (in both flexion and extension) was correlated with the clinical scales (r of about 0.7 with MRC, and about 0.5 with FAT). DISCUSSION:Finger strength (in both flexion and extension) and muscle tone, as provided by a robotic device for hand rehabilitation, are reliable and sensitive measures. Moreover, finger strength is strongly correlated with clinical scales. Changes higher than the obtained MDC in these robotic measures could be considered as clinically relevant and used to assess the effect of a rehabilitation treatment in patients with subacute stroke.

Project description:BackgroundThe ability to perform a cognitive task while walking simultaneously (dual-tasking) is important in real life. However, the psychometric properties of dual-task walking tests have not been well established in stroke.ObjectiveTo assess the test-retest reliability, concurrent and known-groups validity of various dual-task walking tests in people with chronic stroke.DesignObservational measurement study with a test-retest design.MethodsEighty-eight individuals with chronic stroke participated. The testing protocol involved four walking tasks (walking forward at self-selected and maximal speed, walking backward at self-selected speed, and crossing over obstacles) performed simultaneously with each of the three attention-demanding tasks (verbal fluency, serial 3 subtractions or carrying a cup of water). For each dual-task condition, the time taken to complete the walking task, the correct response rate (CRR) of the cognitive task, and the dual-task effect (DTE) for the walking time and CRR were calculated. Forty-six of the participants were tested twice within 3-4 days to establish test-retest reliability.ResultsThe walking time in various dual-task assessments demonstrated good to excellent reliability [Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC2,1) = 0.70-0.93; relative minimal detectable change at 95% confidence level (MDC95%) = 29%-45%]. The reliability of the CRR (ICC2,1 = 0.58-0.81) and the DTE in walking time (ICC2,1 = 0.11-0.80) was more varied. The reliability of the DTE in CRR (ICC2,1 = -0.31-0.40) was poor to fair. The walking time and CRR obtained in various dual-task walking tests were moderately to strongly correlated with those of the dual-task Timed-up-and-Go test, thus demonstrating good concurrent validity. None of the tests could discriminate fallers (those who had sustained at least one fall in the past year) from non-fallers.LimitationThe results are generalizable to community-dwelling individuals with chronic stroke only.ConclusionsThe walking time derived from the various dual-task assessments generally demonstrated good to excellent reliability, making them potentially useful in clinical practice and future research endeavors. However, the usefulness of these measurements in predicting falls needs to be further explored. Relatively low reliability was shown in the cognitive outcomes and DTE, which may not be preferred measurements for assessing dual-task performance.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Balance performance is considered as an indicator of functional status in the elderly, a large scale population screening and evaluation in the community context followed by proper interventions would be of great significance at public health level. However, there has been no suitable balance testing scale available for large scale studies in the unique community context of urban China. METHODS:A balance scale named X16 balance testing scale was developed, which was composed of 3 domains and 16 items. A total of 1985 functionally independent and active community-dwelling elderly adults' balance abilities were tested using the X16 scale. The internal consistency, split-half reliability, content validity, construct validity, discriminant validity of X16 balance testing scale were evaluated. RESULTS:Factor analysis was performed to identify alternative factor structure. The Eigenvalues of factors 1, 2, and 3 were 8.53, 1.79, and 1.21, respectively, and their cumulative contribution to the total variance reached 72.0%. These 3 factors mainly represented domains static balance, postural stability, and dynamic balance. The Cronbach alpha coefficient for the scale was 0.933. The Spearman correlation coefficients between items and its corresponding domains were ranged from 0.538 to 0.964. The correlation coefficients between each item and its corresponding domain were higher than the coefficients between this item and other domains. With the increase of age, the scores of balance performance, domains static balance, postural stability, and dynamic balance in the elderly declined gradually (P?<?0.001). With the increase of age, the proportion of the elderly with intact balance performance decreased gradually (P?< 0.001). CONCLUSIONS:The reliability and validity of the X16 balance testing scale is both adequate and acceptable. Due to its simple and quick use features, it is practical to be used repeatedly and routinely especially in community setting and on large scale screening.

Project description:Background: Somatosensory impairment is common in patients who have had a stroke and can affect their motor function and activities of daily living (ADL). Therefore, detecting and treating somatosensory impairments properly is considered to be very important, and various examinations have been developed. However, the reliability and validity of few of them have been verified due to differences in the procedure of each examiner or poor quantification by the examination itself. Objective: We hypothesized that, with fixed procedures two convenient clinical examinations, the Semmes-Weinstein Monofilament Test (SWMT) and the Thumb Localizing Test (TLT), could provide reliable assessments of light touch sensation and proprioception. The purpose of this study was to verify the reliability and validity of these two examinations as indices of somatosensory impairment of the upper extremity (UE) in patients with chronic post-stroke hemiparesis. Methods: Fifty patients with chronic stroke (median time after onset of stroke, 848 [474-1708] days, mean age 57 [standard deviation 14] years) were enrolled at Keio University Hospital from 2017 to 2018. Examiners learned the original method of the SWMT and the TLT rigorously and shared it with each other. The TLT procedure was partially modified by dividing the location of the patient's thumb into four spaces. Two examiners evaluated the SWMT and the TLT for 2 days, and intra-rater and inter-rater reliabilities were calculated using weighted kappa statistics. In addition to this, the evaluator size score of the SWMT was assessed with Bland-Altman analysis to evaluate systematic bias. The Stroke Impairment Assessment Set (SIAS) sensory items were used to assess validity, and Spearman's rank correlation coefficients were calculated. Results: Intra/inter-rater agreements of the SWMT grade score were 0.89 (thumb, 95%CI: 0.83-0.95)/ 0.75 (0.60-0.91) and 0.80 (index finger, 0.67-0.93)/0.79 (0.66-0.92), and of the TLT they were 0.83 (navel level proximal space, 0.71-0.95)/ 0.83 (0.73-0.92), 0.90 (navel level distal space, 0.85-0.96)/ 0.80 (0.69-0.90), 0.80 (shoulder level proximal space, 0.68-0.92)/ 0.77 (0.65-0.89), and 0.87 (shoulder level distal space, 0.80-0.93)/ 0.80 (0.68-0.92) (P < 0.001, each item). All of them showed substantial agreement, but the MDC of the SWMT evaluator size was 1.28 to 1.79 in the inter-rater test and 1.94-2.06 in the intra-rater test. The SWMT grade score showed a strong correlation with the SIAS light touch sensation item (r = 0.65, p < 0.001), as did the TLT with the SIAS position sense item (r = -0.70-0.62, p < 0.001 each space). Conclusions: The reliability and validity of the SWMT and the TLT were verified. These tests can be used as reliable sensory examinations of the UE in patients with chronic stroke, and especially for the SWMT, it is more reliable for screening.

Dataset Information

Reliability and validity of the Balance Evaluation Systems Test (BESTest) in people with subacute stroke.

Background

Objective

Design

Methods

Results

Limitation

Conclusion

Publications

Reliability and validity of the Balance Evaluation Systems Test (BESTest) in people with subacute stroke.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets