Validity, reliability and ability to identify fall status of the Berg Balance Scale, BESTest, Mini-BESTest and Brief-BESTest in patients with COPD
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2016 |
Outros Autores: | , , |
Tipo de documento: | Artigo |
Idioma: | eng |
Título da fonte: | Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) |
Texto Completo: | http://hdl.handle.net/10773/22370 |
Resumo: | Background The Berg Balance Scale (BBS), Balance Evaluation Systems Test (BESTest), Mini-BESTest, and Brief-BESTest are useful in the assessment of balance. Their psychometric properties, however, have not been tested in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Objective This study aimed to compare the validity, reliability, and ability to identify fall status of the BBS, BESTest, Mini-BESTest, and the Brief-BESTest in patients with COPD. Design A cross-sectional study was conducted. Methods Forty-six patients (24 men, 22 women; mean age=75.9 years, SD=7.1) were included. Participants were asked to report their falls during the previous 12 months and to fill in the Activity-specific Balance Confidence (ABC) Scale. The BBS and the BESTest were administered. Mini-BESTest and Brief-BESTest scores were computed based on the participants' BESTest performance. Validity was assessed by correlating balance tests with each other and with the ABC Scale. Interrater reliability (2 raters), intrarater reliability (48–72 hours), and minimal detectable changes (MDCs) were established. Receiver operating characteristics assessed the ability of each balance test to differentiate between participants with and without a history of falls. Results Balance test scores were significantly correlated with each other (Spearman correlation rho=.73–.90) and with the ABC Scale (rho=.53–.75). Balance tests presented high interrater reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC]=.85–.97) and intrarater reliability (ICC=.52–.88) and acceptable MDCs (MDC=3.3–6.3 points). Although all balance tests were able to identify fall status (area under the curve=0.74–0.84), the BBS (sensitivity=73%, specificity=77%) and the Brief-BESTest (sensitivity=81%, specificity=73%) had the higher ability to identify fall status. Limitations Findings are generalizable mainly to older patients with moderate COPD. Conclusions The 4 balance tests are valid, reliable, and valuable in identifying fall status in patients with COPD. The Brief-BESTest presented slightly higher interrater reliability and ability to differentiate participants' fall status. |
id |
RCAP_d670a67bd903825a31d101fd7b7c3aae |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:ria.ua.pt:10773/22370 |
network_acronym_str |
RCAP |
network_name_str |
Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) |
repository_id_str |
7160 |
spelling |
Validity, reliability and ability to identify fall status of the Berg Balance Scale, BESTest, Mini-BESTest and Brief-BESTest in patients with COPDFalls and falls preventionChronic Obstructive Pulmonary DiseaseBalanceTests and measurementsBackground The Berg Balance Scale (BBS), Balance Evaluation Systems Test (BESTest), Mini-BESTest, and Brief-BESTest are useful in the assessment of balance. Their psychometric properties, however, have not been tested in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Objective This study aimed to compare the validity, reliability, and ability to identify fall status of the BBS, BESTest, Mini-BESTest, and the Brief-BESTest in patients with COPD. Design A cross-sectional study was conducted. Methods Forty-six patients (24 men, 22 women; mean age=75.9 years, SD=7.1) were included. Participants were asked to report their falls during the previous 12 months and to fill in the Activity-specific Balance Confidence (ABC) Scale. The BBS and the BESTest were administered. Mini-BESTest and Brief-BESTest scores were computed based on the participants' BESTest performance. Validity was assessed by correlating balance tests with each other and with the ABC Scale. Interrater reliability (2 raters), intrarater reliability (48–72 hours), and minimal detectable changes (MDCs) were established. Receiver operating characteristics assessed the ability of each balance test to differentiate between participants with and without a history of falls. Results Balance test scores were significantly correlated with each other (Spearman correlation rho=.73–.90) and with the ABC Scale (rho=.53–.75). Balance tests presented high interrater reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC]=.85–.97) and intrarater reliability (ICC=.52–.88) and acceptable MDCs (MDC=3.3–6.3 points). Although all balance tests were able to identify fall status (area under the curve=0.74–0.84), the BBS (sensitivity=73%, specificity=77%) and the Brief-BESTest (sensitivity=81%, specificity=73%) had the higher ability to identify fall status. Limitations Findings are generalizable mainly to older patients with moderate COPD. Conclusions The 4 balance tests are valid, reliable, and valuable in identifying fall status in patients with COPD. The Brief-BESTest presented slightly higher interrater reliability and ability to differentiate participants' fall status.Oxford University Press2018-02-26T12:06:27Z2016-11-01T00:00:00Z2016-11-01info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/articleapplication/pdfhttp://hdl.handle.net/10773/22370eng0031-902310.2522/ptj.20150391Jácome, CristinaCruz, JoanaOliveira, AnaMarques, Aldainfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessreponame:Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)instname:Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informaçãoinstacron:RCAAP2024-02-22T11:43:23Zoai:ria.ua.pt:10773/22370Portal AgregadorONGhttps://www.rcaap.pt/oai/openaireopendoar:71602024-03-20T02:56:21.428901Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) - Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informaçãofalse |
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
Validity, reliability and ability to identify fall status of the Berg Balance Scale, BESTest, Mini-BESTest and Brief-BESTest in patients with COPD |
title |
Validity, reliability and ability to identify fall status of the Berg Balance Scale, BESTest, Mini-BESTest and Brief-BESTest in patients with COPD |
spellingShingle |
Validity, reliability and ability to identify fall status of the Berg Balance Scale, BESTest, Mini-BESTest and Brief-BESTest in patients with COPD Jácome, Cristina Falls and falls prevention Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Balance Tests and measurements |
title_short |
Validity, reliability and ability to identify fall status of the Berg Balance Scale, BESTest, Mini-BESTest and Brief-BESTest in patients with COPD |
title_full |
Validity, reliability and ability to identify fall status of the Berg Balance Scale, BESTest, Mini-BESTest and Brief-BESTest in patients with COPD |
title_fullStr |
Validity, reliability and ability to identify fall status of the Berg Balance Scale, BESTest, Mini-BESTest and Brief-BESTest in patients with COPD |
title_full_unstemmed |
Validity, reliability and ability to identify fall status of the Berg Balance Scale, BESTest, Mini-BESTest and Brief-BESTest in patients with COPD |
title_sort |
Validity, reliability and ability to identify fall status of the Berg Balance Scale, BESTest, Mini-BESTest and Brief-BESTest in patients with COPD |
author |
Jácome, Cristina |
author_facet |
Jácome, Cristina Cruz, Joana Oliveira, Ana Marques, Alda |
author_role |
author |
author2 |
Cruz, Joana Oliveira, Ana Marques, Alda |
author2_role |
author author author |
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
Jácome, Cristina Cruz, Joana Oliveira, Ana Marques, Alda |
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv |
Falls and falls prevention Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Balance Tests and measurements |
topic |
Falls and falls prevention Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Balance Tests and measurements |
description |
Background The Berg Balance Scale (BBS), Balance Evaluation Systems Test (BESTest), Mini-BESTest, and Brief-BESTest are useful in the assessment of balance. Their psychometric properties, however, have not been tested in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Objective This study aimed to compare the validity, reliability, and ability to identify fall status of the BBS, BESTest, Mini-BESTest, and the Brief-BESTest in patients with COPD. Design A cross-sectional study was conducted. Methods Forty-six patients (24 men, 22 women; mean age=75.9 years, SD=7.1) were included. Participants were asked to report their falls during the previous 12 months and to fill in the Activity-specific Balance Confidence (ABC) Scale. The BBS and the BESTest were administered. Mini-BESTest and Brief-BESTest scores were computed based on the participants' BESTest performance. Validity was assessed by correlating balance tests with each other and with the ABC Scale. Interrater reliability (2 raters), intrarater reliability (48–72 hours), and minimal detectable changes (MDCs) were established. Receiver operating characteristics assessed the ability of each balance test to differentiate between participants with and without a history of falls. Results Balance test scores were significantly correlated with each other (Spearman correlation rho=.73–.90) and with the ABC Scale (rho=.53–.75). Balance tests presented high interrater reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC]=.85–.97) and intrarater reliability (ICC=.52–.88) and acceptable MDCs (MDC=3.3–6.3 points). Although all balance tests were able to identify fall status (area under the curve=0.74–0.84), the BBS (sensitivity=73%, specificity=77%) and the Brief-BESTest (sensitivity=81%, specificity=73%) had the higher ability to identify fall status. Limitations Findings are generalizable mainly to older patients with moderate COPD. Conclusions The 4 balance tests are valid, reliable, and valuable in identifying fall status in patients with COPD. The Brief-BESTest presented slightly higher interrater reliability and ability to differentiate participants' fall status. |
publishDate |
2016 |
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2016-11-01T00:00:00Z 2016-11-01 2018-02-26T12:06:27Z |
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion |
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article |
format |
article |
status_str |
publishedVersion |
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv |
http://hdl.handle.net/10773/22370 |
url |
http://hdl.handle.net/10773/22370 |
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
eng |
language |
eng |
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv |
0031-9023 10.2522/ptj.20150391 |
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
application/pdf |
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Oxford University Press |
publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Oxford University Press |
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
reponame:Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) instname:Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação instacron:RCAAP |
instname_str |
Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação |
instacron_str |
RCAAP |
institution |
RCAAP |
reponame_str |
Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) |
collection |
Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) - Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
|
_version_ |
1799137617570168832 |