Reliability of the Balance Evaluation Systems Test (BESTest) and BESTest sections for adults with hemiparesis

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Rodrigues,Letícia C.
Data de Publicação: 2014
Outros Autores: Marques,Aline P., Barros,Paula B., Michaelsen,Stella M.
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: Brazilian Journal of Physical Therapy
Texto Completo: http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1413-35552014000300276
Resumo: BACKGROUND: The Balance Evaluation Systems Test (BESTest) was recently created to allow the development of treatments according to the specific balance system affected in each patient. The Brazilian version of the BESTest has not been specifically tested after stroke. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the intra- and inter-rater reliability and concurrent and convergent validity of the total score of the BESTest and BESTest sections for adults with hemiparesis after stroke. METHOD: The study included 16 subjects (61.1±7.5 years) with chronic hemiparesis (54.5±43.5 months after stroke). The BESTest was administered by two raters in the same week and one of the raters repeated the test after a one-week interval. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was calculated to assess intra- and interrater reliability. Concurrent validity with the Berg Balance Scale (BBS) and convergent validity with the Activities-specific Balance Confidence scale (ABC-Brazil) were assessed using Pearson's correlation coefficient. RESULTS: Both the BESTest total score (ICC=0.98) and the BESTest sections (ICC between 0.85 and 0.96) have excellent intrarater reliability. Interrater reliability for the total score was excellent (ICC=0.93) and, for the sections, it ranged between 0.71 and 0.94. The correlation coefficient between the BESTest and the BBS and ABC-Brazil were 0.78 and 0.59, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The Brazilian version of the BESTest demonstrated adequate reliability when measured by sections and could identify what balance system was affected in patients after stroke. Concurrent validity was excellent with the BBS total score and good to excellent with the sections. The total scores but not the sections present adequate convergent validity with the ABC-Brazil. However, other psychometric properties should be further investigated.
id ABRA-FT-1_743f7dea61123da17cd88f3b659af8f6
oai_identifier_str oai:scielo:S1413-35552014000300276
network_acronym_str ABRA-FT-1
network_name_str Brazilian Journal of Physical Therapy
repository_id_str
spelling Reliability of the Balance Evaluation Systems Test (BESTest) and BESTest sections for adults with hemiparesisstrokepsychometric propertiesoutcomerehabilitation BACKGROUND: The Balance Evaluation Systems Test (BESTest) was recently created to allow the development of treatments according to the specific balance system affected in each patient. The Brazilian version of the BESTest has not been specifically tested after stroke. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the intra- and inter-rater reliability and concurrent and convergent validity of the total score of the BESTest and BESTest sections for adults with hemiparesis after stroke. METHOD: The study included 16 subjects (61.1±7.5 years) with chronic hemiparesis (54.5±43.5 months after stroke). The BESTest was administered by two raters in the same week and one of the raters repeated the test after a one-week interval. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was calculated to assess intra- and interrater reliability. Concurrent validity with the Berg Balance Scale (BBS) and convergent validity with the Activities-specific Balance Confidence scale (ABC-Brazil) were assessed using Pearson's correlation coefficient. RESULTS: Both the BESTest total score (ICC=0.98) and the BESTest sections (ICC between 0.85 and 0.96) have excellent intrarater reliability. Interrater reliability for the total score was excellent (ICC=0.93) and, for the sections, it ranged between 0.71 and 0.94. The correlation coefficient between the BESTest and the BBS and ABC-Brazil were 0.78 and 0.59, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The Brazilian version of the BESTest demonstrated adequate reliability when measured by sections and could identify what balance system was affected in patients after stroke. Concurrent validity was excellent with the BBS total score and good to excellent with the sections. The total scores but not the sections present adequate convergent validity with the ABC-Brazil. However, other psychometric properties should be further investigated. Associação Brasileira de Pesquisa e Pós-Graduação em Fisioterapia 2014-06-01info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersiontext/htmlhttp://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1413-35552014000300276Brazilian Journal of Physical Therapy v.18 n.3 2014reponame:Brazilian Journal of Physical Therapyinstname:Associação Brasileira de Pesquisa e Pós-Graduação em Fisioterapia (ABRAPG-FT)instacron:ABRAPG-FT10.1590/bjpt-rbf.2014.0033info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessRodrigues,Letícia C.Marques,Aline P.Barros,Paula B.Michaelsen,Stella M.eng2015-08-21T00:00:00Zoai:scielo:S1413-35552014000300276Revistahttps://www.scielo.br/j/rbfis/https://old.scielo.br/oai/scielo-oai.phpcontato@rbf-bjpt.org.br||contato@rbf-bjpt.org.br1809-92461413-3555opendoar:2015-08-21T00:00Brazilian Journal of Physical Therapy - Associação Brasileira de Pesquisa e Pós-Graduação em Fisioterapia (ABRAPG-FT)false
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Reliability of the Balance Evaluation Systems Test (BESTest) and BESTest sections for adults with hemiparesis
title Reliability of the Balance Evaluation Systems Test (BESTest) and BESTest sections for adults with hemiparesis
spellingShingle Reliability of the Balance Evaluation Systems Test (BESTest) and BESTest sections for adults with hemiparesis
Rodrigues,Letícia C.
stroke
psychometric properties
outcome
rehabilitation
title_short Reliability of the Balance Evaluation Systems Test (BESTest) and BESTest sections for adults with hemiparesis
title_full Reliability of the Balance Evaluation Systems Test (BESTest) and BESTest sections for adults with hemiparesis
title_fullStr Reliability of the Balance Evaluation Systems Test (BESTest) and BESTest sections for adults with hemiparesis
title_full_unstemmed Reliability of the Balance Evaluation Systems Test (BESTest) and BESTest sections for adults with hemiparesis
title_sort Reliability of the Balance Evaluation Systems Test (BESTest) and BESTest sections for adults with hemiparesis
author Rodrigues,Letícia C.
author_facet Rodrigues,Letícia C.
Marques,Aline P.
Barros,Paula B.
Michaelsen,Stella M.
author_role author
author2 Marques,Aline P.
Barros,Paula B.
Michaelsen,Stella M.
author2_role author
author
author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Rodrigues,Letícia C.
Marques,Aline P.
Barros,Paula B.
Michaelsen,Stella M.
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv stroke
psychometric properties
outcome
rehabilitation
topic stroke
psychometric properties
outcome
rehabilitation
description BACKGROUND: The Balance Evaluation Systems Test (BESTest) was recently created to allow the development of treatments according to the specific balance system affected in each patient. The Brazilian version of the BESTest has not been specifically tested after stroke. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the intra- and inter-rater reliability and concurrent and convergent validity of the total score of the BESTest and BESTest sections for adults with hemiparesis after stroke. METHOD: The study included 16 subjects (61.1±7.5 years) with chronic hemiparesis (54.5±43.5 months after stroke). The BESTest was administered by two raters in the same week and one of the raters repeated the test after a one-week interval. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was calculated to assess intra- and interrater reliability. Concurrent validity with the Berg Balance Scale (BBS) and convergent validity with the Activities-specific Balance Confidence scale (ABC-Brazil) were assessed using Pearson's correlation coefficient. RESULTS: Both the BESTest total score (ICC=0.98) and the BESTest sections (ICC between 0.85 and 0.96) have excellent intrarater reliability. Interrater reliability for the total score was excellent (ICC=0.93) and, for the sections, it ranged between 0.71 and 0.94. The correlation coefficient between the BESTest and the BBS and ABC-Brazil were 0.78 and 0.59, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The Brazilian version of the BESTest demonstrated adequate reliability when measured by sections and could identify what balance system was affected in patients after stroke. Concurrent validity was excellent with the BBS total score and good to excellent with the sections. The total scores but not the sections present adequate convergent validity with the ABC-Brazil. However, other psychometric properties should be further investigated.
publishDate 2014
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2014-06-01
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1413-35552014000300276
url http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1413-35552014000300276
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv 10.1590/bjpt-rbf.2014.0033
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv text/html
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Associação Brasileira de Pesquisa e Pós-Graduação em Fisioterapia
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Associação Brasileira de Pesquisa e Pós-Graduação em Fisioterapia
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv Brazilian Journal of Physical Therapy v.18 n.3 2014
reponame:Brazilian Journal of Physical Therapy
instname:Associação Brasileira de Pesquisa e Pós-Graduação em Fisioterapia (ABRAPG-FT)
instacron:ABRAPG-FT
instname_str Associação Brasileira de Pesquisa e Pós-Graduação em Fisioterapia (ABRAPG-FT)
instacron_str ABRAPG-FT
institution ABRAPG-FT
reponame_str Brazilian Journal of Physical Therapy
collection Brazilian Journal of Physical Therapy
repository.name.fl_str_mv Brazilian Journal of Physical Therapy - Associação Brasileira de Pesquisa e Pós-Graduação em Fisioterapia (ABRAPG-FT)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv contato@rbf-bjpt.org.br||contato@rbf-bjpt.org.br
_version_ 1754575950079590400