Publication: Reliability and Validity of the Balance Evaluation Systems Test (BESTest) in People With Subacute Stroke
0
0
Issued Date
2014
Resource Type
Language
eng
File Type
application/pdf
Access Rights
open access
Rights
ผลงานนี้เผยแพร่ภายใต้ สัญญาอนุญาตครีเอทีฟคอมมอนส์แบบ แสดงที่มา-ไม่ใช้เพื่อการค้า-ไม่ดัดแปลง 4.0 (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)
Rights Holder(s)
มหาวิทยาลัยศรีนครินทรวิโรฒ
Bibliographic Citation
Physical Therapy, Volume 94, Issue 11, 1 November 2014, Pages 1632–1643
Suggested Citation
Butsara Chinsongkram, Nithinun Chaikeeree, Vitoon Saengsirisuwan, Nitaya Viriyatharakij, Fay B. Horak, Rumpa Boonsinsukh Reliability and Validity of the Balance Evaluation Systems Test (BESTest) in People With Subacute Stroke. Physical Therapy, Volume 94, Issue 11, 1 November 2014, Pages 1632–1643. doi:https://doi.org/10.2522/ptj.20130558 Retrieved from: https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14740/11837
Organization
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.