Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://ir.swu.ac.th/jspui/handle/123456789/24985
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorButsara Chinsongkram
dc.contributor.authorNithinun Chaikeeree
dc.contributor.authorVitoon Saengsirisuwan
dc.contributor.authorNitaya Viriyatharakij
dc.contributor.authorFay B. Horak
dc.contributor.authorRumpa Boonsinsukh
dc.date.accessioned2022-09-07T08:17:45Z-
dc.date.available2022-09-07T08:17:45Z-
dc.date.issued2014
dc.identifier.urihttps://academic.oup.com/ptj/article/94/11/1632/2735450?searchresult=1
dc.identifier.urihttps://ir.swu.ac.th/jspui/handle/123456789/24985-
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.
dc.language.isoen
dc.subjectBalance
dc.subjectStroke (Neurology)
dc.subjectTests and Measurements
dc.subjectStroke (Geriatrics)
dc.titleReliability and Validity of the Balance Evaluation Systems Test (BESTest) in People With Subacute Stroke
dc.typeArticle
dc.identifier.bibliograpycitationPhysical Therapy, Volume 94, Issue 11, 1 November 2014, Pages 1632–1643
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.2522/ptj.20130558
Appears in Collections:Pt-Journal Articles

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.