OBJECTIVE: To contribute to the reliability and validity of a series of functional balance tests for use post stroke. DESIGN: Within-session, test-retest and intertester reliability was tested using the kappa coefficient and intraclass correlations. The tests were performed three times and the first and third attempts compared to test the within-session reliability. The tests were repeated a few days later to assess test-retest reliability and were scored simultaneously by two physiotherapists to assess the intertester reliability. To test criterion-related validity the tests were compared with the sitting section of the Motor Assessment Scale, Berg Balance Scale and Rivermead Mobility Index using Spearman's rho. SETTING: Stroke physiotherapy services of six National Health Service hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: People with a post stroke hemiplegia attending physiotherapy who had no other pathology affecting their balance took part. Thirty-five people participated in the reliability testing and 48 people took part in the validity testing. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The following functional balance tests were used: supported sitting balance, sitting arm raise, sitting forward reach, supported standing balance, standing arm raise, standing forward reach, static tandem standing, weight shift, timed 5-m walk with and without an aid, tap and step-up tests. RESULTS: The ordinal level tests (supported sitting and standing balance and static tandem standing tests) showed 100% agreement in all aspects of reliability. Intraclass correlations for the other tests ranged from 0.93 to 0.99. All the tests showed significant correlations with the appropriate comparator tests (r = 0.32-0.74 p < 0.05), except the weight shift test and step-up tests which did not form significant relationship with Berg Balance Scale (r = 0.26 and 0.19 respectively). CONCLUSION: These functional balance tests are reliable and valid measures of balance disability post stroke.
OBJECTIVE: To contribute to the reliability and validity of a series of functional balance tests for use post stroke. DESIGN: Within-session, test-retest and intertester reliability was tested using the kappa coefficient and intraclass correlations. The tests were performed three times and the first and third attempts compared to test the within-session reliability. The tests were repeated a few days later to assess test-retest reliability and were scored simultaneously by two physiotherapists to assess the intertester reliability. To test criterion-related validity the tests were compared with the sitting section of the Motor Assessment Scale, Berg Balance Scale and Rivermead Mobility Index using Spearman's rho. SETTING:Stroke physiotherapy services of six National Health Service hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: People with a post stroke hemiplegia attending physiotherapy who had no other pathology affecting their balance took part. Thirty-five people participated in the reliability testing and 48 people took part in the validity testing. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The following functional balance tests were used: supported sitting balance, sitting arm raise, sitting forward reach, supported standing balance, standing arm raise, standing forward reach, static tandem standing, weight shift, timed 5-m walk with and without an aid, tap and step-up tests. RESULTS: The ordinal level tests (supported sitting and standing balance and static tandem standing tests) showed 100% agreement in all aspects of reliability. Intraclass correlations for the other tests ranged from 0.93 to 0.99. All the tests showed significant correlations with the appropriate comparator tests (r = 0.32-0.74 p < 0.05), except the weight shift test and step-up tests which did not form significant relationship with Berg Balance Scale (r = 0.26 and 0.19 respectively). CONCLUSION: These functional balance tests are reliable and valid measures of balance disability post stroke.
Authors: James E Graham; Glenn V Ostir; Yong-Fang Kuo; Steven R Fisher; Kenneth J Ottenbacher Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2008-05 Impact factor: 3.966
Authors: Aqeel M Alenazi; Mohammed M Alshehri; Shaima Alothman; Jason Rucker; Kari Dunning; Linda J D'Silva; Patricia M Kluding Journal: PM R Date: 2017-12-26 Impact factor: 2.298
Authors: Kingsley O Abode-Iyamah; Stephanus V Viljoen; Colleen L McHenry; Michael A Petrie; Kirsten E Stoner; Nader S Dahdaleh; Nicole M Grosland; Matthew A Howard; Richard K Shields Journal: Neurosurgery Date: 2016-11 Impact factor: 4.654
Authors: Nancy Fell; Hanna H True; Brandon Allen; Austin Harris; Jin Cho; Zhen Hu; Mina Sartipi; Krystal K Place; Rebecca Salstrand Journal: Mhealth Date: 2019-10-08
Authors: Reed Handlery; Elizabeth W Regan; Jill C Stewart; Christine Pellegrini; Courtney Monroe; Garrett Hainline; Kaci Handlery; Stacy L Fritz Journal: Stroke Date: 2021-03-11 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Rosa Cabanas-Valdés; Lídia Boix-Sala; Montserrat Grau-Pellicer; Juan Antonio Guzmán-Bernal; Fernanda Maria Caballero-Gómez; Gerard Urrútia Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-06-19 Impact factor: 3.390