scholarly journals Responsiveness of the Balance Evaluation Systems Test (BESTest) in People With Subacute Stroke

2016 ◽  
Vol 96 (10) ◽  
pp. 1638-1647 ◽  
Author(s):  
Butsara Chinsongkram ◽  
Nithinun Chaikeeree ◽  
Vitoon Saengsirisuwan ◽  
Fay B. Horak ◽  
Rumpa Boonsinsukh
Keyword(s):  
Berg Balance Scale ◽  
Assessment Scale ◽  
Balance Performance ◽  
Stroke Patients ◽  
Evaluation Systems ◽  
Balance Scale ◽  
Subacute Stroke ◽  
Ceiling Effects ◽  
External Responsiveness ◽  
Postural Assessment

AbstractBackgroundThe reliability and convergent validity of the Balance Evaluation Systems Test (BESTest) in people with subacute stroke have been established, but its responsiveness to rehabilitation has not been examined.ObjectiveThe study objective was to compare the responsiveness of the BESTest with those of other clinical balance tools in people with subacute stroke.DesignThis was a prospective cohort study.MethodsForty-nine people with subacute stroke (mean age=57.8 years, SD=11.8) participated in this study. Five balance measures—the BESTest, the Mini-BESTest, the Berg Balance Scale, the Postural Assessment Scale for Stroke Patients, and the Community Balance and Mobility Scale (CB&M)—were used to measure balance performance before and after rehabilitation or before discharge from the hospital, whichever came first. The internal responsiveness of each balance measure was classified with the standardized response mean (SRM); changes in Berg Balance Scale scores of greater than 7 were used as the external standard for determining the external responsiveness. Analysis of the receiver operating characteristic curve was used to determine the accuracy and cutoff scores for identifying participants with balance improvement.ResultsParticipants received 13.7 days (SD=9.3, range=5–44) of physical therapy rehabilitation. The internal responsiveness of all balance measures, except for the CB&M, was high (SRM=0.9–1.2). The BESTest had a higher SRM than the Mini-BESTest and the CB&M, indicating that the BESTest was more sensitive for detecting balance changes than the Mini-BESTest and the CB&M. In addition, compared with other balance measures, the BESTest had no floor, ceiling, or responsive ceiling effects. The results also indicated that the percentage of participants with no change in scores after rehabilitation was smaller with the BESTest than with the Mini-BESTest and the CB&M. With regard to the external responsiveness, the BESTest had higher accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and posttest accuracy than the Postural Assessment Scale for Stroke Patients and the CB&M for identifying participants with balance improvement. Changes in BESTest scores of 10% or more indicated changes in balance performance.LimitationsA limitation of this study was the difference in the time periods between the first and the second assessments across participants.ConclusionsThe BESTest was the most sensitive scale for assessing balance recovery in participants with subacute stroke because of its high internal and external responsiveness and lack of floor and ceiling effects.

Group- and Individual-Level Responsiveness of the 3-Point Berg Balance Scale and 3-Point Postural Assessment Scale for Stroke Patients

2018 ◽  
Vol 99 (3) ◽  
pp. 529-533 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yi-Jing Huang ◽  
Gong-Hong Lin ◽  
Shih-Chieh Lee ◽  
Yi-Miau Chen ◽  
Sheau-Ling Huang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Berg Balance Scale ◽  
Assessment Scale ◽  
Stroke Patients ◽  
Individual Level ◽  
Balance Scale ◽  
Postural Assessment

scholarly journals Psychometric Properties of 2 Simplified 3-Level Balance Scales Used for Patients With Stroke

2004 ◽  
Vol 84 (5) ◽  
pp. 430-438 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chun-Hou Wang ◽  
I-Ping Hsueh ◽  
Ching-Fan Sheu ◽  
Grace Yao ◽  
Ching-Lin Hsieh
Keyword(s):  
Psychometric Properties ◽  
Predictive Validity ◽  
Convergent Validity ◽  
Berg Balance Scale ◽  
Assessment Scale ◽  
Stroke Patients ◽  
Yield Data ◽  
Balance Scale ◽  
High Responsiveness ◽  
Postural Assessment

Abstract Background and Purpose. To determine if the 3-level scales yield data as reliable and valid as data obtained for the original scales, 2 simplified 3-level measures of balance—a modified Berg Balance Scale (BBS-3P) and a modified Postural Assessment Scale for Stroke Patients (PASS-3P)—were proposed by the researchers, and psychometric properties of each were compared with those of the original measures (the Berg Balance Scale [BBS] and the Postural Assessment Scale for Stroke Patients [PASS], respectively) in patients with stroke. Subjects and Methods. The study consisted of 2 parts. The first part examined the reliability and concurrent and convergent validity of measurements obtained with these instruments. A total of 77 patients participated in this part of the study. The 3 levels in the center of the BBS were collapsed to a single level (ie, 0–2–4) to form the BBS-3P. Similarly, the 2 middle scores of the center of the PASS were averaged (ie, 0–1.5–3) to form the PASS-3P. In the second part of the study, the predictive validity and responsiveness of these measures were examined. The BBS and PASS scores of 226 patients were retrieved from the records of participants in the Quality of Life After Stroke Study, and these scores were converted into the proposed BBS-3P and PASS-3P scores. Results. The BBS-3P and PASS-3P showed high concurrent validity with the BBS and PASS, good predictive validity for disability, and moderate to high responsiveness. Importantly, the psychometric properties of the BBS-3P and PASS-3P were essentially identical to those of the original BBS and PASS. Discussion and Conclusion. The psychometric properties of both simplified 3-level balance measures were comparable to those of the full, nontruncated scales. Future study is needed to investigate how much meaningful utility can be gained from the scheme of simplification of scaling.

scholarly journals Postural Assessment Scale for Stroke Patients in Acute, Subacute and Chronic Stage: A Construct Validity Study

Diagnostics ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 365
Author(s):  
Cecilia Estrada-Barranco ◽  
Roberto Cano-de-la-Cuerda ◽  
Vanesa Abuín-Porras ◽  
Francisco Molina-Rueda
Keyword(s):  
Construct Validity ◽  
Functional Independence Measure ◽  
Functional Independence ◽  
Assessment Scale ◽  
Validity Study ◽  
Stroke Patients ◽  
Chronic Stage ◽  
Post Stroke ◽  
Valid Instrument ◽  
Postural Assessment

(1) Background: Observational scales are the most common methodology used to assess postural control and balance in people with stroke. The aim of this paper was to analyse the construct validity of the Postural Assessment Scale for Stroke Patients (PASS) scale in post-stroke patients in the acute, subacute, and chronic stroke phases. (2) Methods: Sixty-one post-stroke participants were enrolled. To analyze the construct validity of the PASS, the following scales were used: the Functional Ambulatory Category (FAC), the Wisconsin Gait Scale (WGS), the Barthel Index (BI) and the Functional Independence Measure (FIM). (3) Results: The construct validity of the PASS scale in patients with stroke at acute phase was moderate with the FAC (r = −0.791), WGS (r = −0.646) and FIM (r = −0.678) and excellent with the BI (r = 0.801). At subacute stage, the construct validity of the PASS scale was excellent with the FAC (r = 0.897), WGS (r = −0.847), FIM (r = −0.810) and BI (r = −0.888). At 6 and 12 months, the construct validity of the PASS with the FAC, WGS, FIM and BI was also excellent. (4) Conclusions: The PASS scale is a valid instrument to assess balance in post-stroke individuals especially, in the subacute and chronic phases (at 6 and 12 months).

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document