BACKGROUND: The Balance Evaluation Systems Test (BESTest) and Mini-BESTest are clinical examinations of balance impairment, but the tests are lengthy and the Mini-BESTest is theoretically inconsistent with the BESTest. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to generate an alternative version of the BESTest that is valid, reliable, time efficient, and founded upon the same theoretical underpinnings as the original test. DESIGN: This was a cross-sectional study. METHODS: Three raters evaluated 20 people with and without a neurological diagnosis. Test items with the highest item-section correlations defined the new Brief-BESTest. The validity of the BESTest, the Mini-BESTest, and the new Brief-BESTest to identify people with or without a neurological diagnosis was compared. Interrater reliability of the test versions was evaluated by intraclass correlation coefficients. Validity was further investigated by determining the ability of each version of the examination to identify the fall status of a second cohort of 26 people with and without multiple sclerosis. RESULTS: Items of hip abductor strength, functional reach, one-leg stance, lateral push-and-release, standing on foam with eyes closed, and the Timed "Up & Go" Test defined the Brief-BESTest. Intraclass correlation coefficients for all examination versions were greater than .98. The accuracy of identifying people from the first cohort with or without a neurological diagnosis was 78% for the BESTest versus 72% for the Mini-BESTest or Brief-BESTest. The sensitivity to fallers from the second cohort was 100% for the Brief-BESTest, 71% for the Mini-BESTest, and 86% for the BESTest, and all versions exhibited specificity of 95% to 100% to identify nonfallers. Limitations Further testing is needed to improve the generalizability of findings. CONCLUSIONS: Although preliminary, the Brief-BESTest demonstrated reliability comparable to that of the Mini-BESTest and potentially superior sensitivity while requiring half the items of the Mini-BESTest and representing all theoretically based sections of the original BESTest.
BACKGROUND: The Balance Evaluation Systems Test (BESTest) and Mini-BESTest are clinical examinations of balance impairment, but the tests are lengthy and the Mini-BESTest is theoretically inconsistent with the BESTest. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to generate an alternative version of the BESTest that is valid, reliable, time efficient, and founded upon the same theoretical underpinnings as the original test. DESIGN: This was a cross-sectional study. METHODS: Three raters evaluated 20 people with and without a neurological diagnosis. Test items with the highest item-section correlations defined the new Brief-BESTest. The validity of the BESTest, the Mini-BESTest, and the new Brief-BESTest to identify people with or without a neurological diagnosis was compared. Interrater reliability of the test versions was evaluated by intraclass correlation coefficients. Validity was further investigated by determining the ability of each version of the examination to identify the fall status of a second cohort of 26 people with and without multiple sclerosis. RESULTS: Items of hip abductor strength, functional reach, one-leg stance, lateral push-and-release, standing on foam with eyes closed, and the Timed "Up & Go" Test defined the Brief-BESTest. Intraclass correlation coefficients for all examination versions were greater than .98. The accuracy of identifying people from the first cohort with or without a neurological diagnosis was 78% for the BESTest versus 72% for the Mini-BESTest or Brief-BESTest. The sensitivity to fallers from the second cohort was 100% for the Brief-BESTest, 71% for the Mini-BESTest, and 86% for the BESTest, and all versions exhibited specificity of 95% to 100% to identify nonfallers. Limitations Further testing is needed to improve the generalizability of findings. CONCLUSIONS: Although preliminary, the Brief-BESTest demonstrated reliability comparable to that of the Mini-BESTest and potentially superior sensitivity while requiring half the items of the Mini-BESTest and representing all theoretically based sections of the original BESTest.
Authors: Thitimard Winairuk; Marco Y C Pang; Vitoon Saengsirisuwan; Fay B Horak; Rumpa Boonsinsukh Journal: J Rehabil Med Date: 2019-10-04 Impact factor: 2.912
Authors: Yejee Lim; Kyunghee Kim; Sun-Hee Ko; Kwanhoon Cho; Eun-Hee Jang; Seung-Hwan Lee; Dong Jun Lim; Ki Hyun Baek; Hee-Sung Ha; Mi Sun Park; Hyeon-Woo Yim; Won-Chul Lee; Kun-Ho Yoon; Ho Young Son; Ki Won Oh; Moo-Il Kang Journal: J Bone Miner Metab Date: 2015-06-09 Impact factor: 2.626
Authors: Ryan P Duncan; Abigail L Leddy; James T Cavanaugh; Leland E Dibble; Terry D Ellis; Matthew P Ford; K Bo Foreman; Gammon M Earhart Journal: Phys Ther Date: 2012-11-21
Authors: Caroline Gil de Godoy; Erika Christina Gouveia E Silva; Danielle Brancolini de Oliveira; Amislaine Cristina Gambeta; Elizabeth Mendes da Silva; Camila Machado de Campos; Ana Carolina Basso Schmitt; Celso R F Carvalho; Carolina Fu; Clarice Tanaka; Naomi Kondo Nakagawa; Carlos Toufen Junior; Carlos Roberto Ribeiro de Carvalho; Keith Hill; José Eduardo Pompeu Journal: Clinics (Sao Paulo) Date: 2021-06-14 Impact factor: 2.365