Validity, reliability and ability to identify fall status of the Berg Balance Scale, BESTest, Mini-BESTest and Brief-BESTest in patients with COPD

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Jácome, Cristina
Data de Publicação: 2016
Outros Autores: Cruz, Joana, Oliveira, Ana, Marques, Alda
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