Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://ir.swu.ac.th/jspui/handle/123456789/14565
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorChinsongkram B.
dc.contributor.authorChaikeeree N.
dc.contributor.authorSaengsirisuwan V.
dc.contributor.authorViriyatharakij N.
dc.contributor.authorHorak F.B.
dc.contributor.authorBoonsinsukh R.
dc.date.accessioned2021-04-05T03:35:37Z-
dc.date.available2021-04-05T03:35:37Z-
dc.date.issued2014
dc.identifier.issn319023
dc.identifier.other2-s2.0-84908408867
dc.identifier.urihttps://ir.swu.ac.th/jspui/handle/123456789/14565-
dc.identifier.urihttps://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-84908408867&doi=10.2522%2fptj.20130558&partnerID=40&md5=32d0486a7a23342c5c70c84376999397
dc.description.abstractBackground. 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. © 2014 American Physical Therapy Association.
dc.subjectadult
dc.subjectaged
dc.subjectbody equilibrium
dc.subjectcohort analysis
dc.subjectdaily life activity
dc.subjectdisability
dc.subjectfemale
dc.subjectgait
dc.subjecthuman
dc.subjectmale
dc.subjectmiddle aged
dc.subjectmotor activity
dc.subjectoutcome assessment
dc.subjectpathophysiology
dc.subjectphysiology
dc.subjectreproducibility
dc.subjectsensitivity and specificity
dc.subjectStroke
dc.subjectActivities of Daily Living
dc.subjectAdult
dc.subjectAged
dc.subjectCohort Studies
dc.subjectDisability Evaluation
dc.subjectFemale
dc.subjectGait
dc.subjectHumans
dc.subjectMale
dc.subjectMiddle Aged
dc.subjectMotor Activity
dc.subjectOutcome Assessment (Health Care)
dc.subjectPostural Balance
dc.subjectReproducibility of Results
dc.subjectSensitivity and Specificity
dc.subjectStroke
dc.titleReliability and validity of the Balance Evaluation Systems Test (BESTest) in people with subacute stroke
dc.typeArticle
dc.rights.holderScopus
dc.identifier.bibliograpycitationPhysical Therapy. Vol 94, No.11 (2014), p.1632-1643
dc.identifier.doi10.2522/ptj.20130558
Appears in Collections:Scopus 1983-2021

Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.


Items in SWU repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.