Dataset Information

The test-retest reliability and limits of agreement of the balance evaluation systems test (BESTest) in young people with intellectual disability.

ABSTRACT: Clinical tests for the assessment of postural balance in people with intellectual disability have been the most commonly used single or multi-item tests, but some tests have been developed, such as the BESTest. The purpose of the study was to evaluate the test-retest reliability and limits of agreement of the Balance Evaluation Systems Test (BESTest) in young people with intellectual disabilities. A descriptive cross-sectional study was conducted with 65 young people (ages 16-25 years) with intellectual disability. The participants completed the BESTest (27 items) twice. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC), 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and standard error of measurement (SEM) were calculated to determine the test-retest reliability of the BESTest. The BESTest overall scores' test-retest reliability was rated as excellent (≥ 0.75). Stability limits/verticality and reactive are fair to good (≥ 0.40- < 0.75). Biomechanical constraints, transitions and anticipatory movements, sensory orientation, and gait stability were excellent (≥ 0.75). Current evidence shows that young people with intellectual disabilities have impaired postural balance. However, there appears to be a lack of assessment tools that reliably evaluate the postural balance of this population. The results from this investigation show that BESTest provides "excellent reliability" (≥ 0.75) to assess postural balance in young people with intellectual disability.

SUBMITTER: Bahiraei S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10520014 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The test-retest reliability and limits of agreement of the balance evaluation systems test (BESTest) in young people with intellectual disability.

Bahiraei Saeid S Hosseini Elham E Lou Rahman Amiri Jomi RAJ

Scientific reports 20230925 1

Clinical tests for the assessment of postural balance in people with intellectual disability have been the most commonly used single or multi-item tests, but some tests have been developed, such as the BESTest. The purpose of the study was to evaluate the test-retest reliability and limits of agreement of the Balance Evaluation Systems Test (BESTest) in young people with intellectual disabilities. A descriptive cross-sectional study was conducted with 65 young people (ages 16-25 years) with inte ...[more]

PMID: 37749177

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundCurrent clinical balance assessment tools do not aim to help therapists identify the underlying postural control systems responsible for poor functional balance. By identifying the disordered systems underlying balance control, therapists can direct specific types of intervention for different types of balance problems.ObjectiveThe goal of this study was to develop a clinical balance assessment tool that aims to target 6 different balance control systems so that specific rehabilitation approaches can be designed for different balance deficits. This article presents the theoretical framework, interrater reliability, and preliminary concurrent validity for this new instrument, the Balance Evaluation Systems Test (BESTest).DesignThe BESTest consists of 36 items, grouped into 6 systems: "Biomechanical Constraints," "Stability Limits/Verticality," "Anticipatory Postural Adjustments," "Postural Responses," "Sensory Orientation," and "Stability in Gait."MethodsIn 2 interrater trials, 22 subjects with and without balance disorders, ranging in age from 50 to 88 years, were rated concurrently on the BESTest by 19 therapists, students, and balance researchers. Concurrent validity was measured by correlation between the BESTest and balance confidence, as assessed with the Activities-specific Balance Confidence (ABC) Scale.ResultsConsistent with our theoretical framework, subjects with different diagnoses scored poorly on different sections of the BESTest. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for interrater reliability for the test as a whole was .91, with the 6 section ICCs ranging from .79 to .96. The Kendall coefficient of concordance among raters ranged from .46 to 1.00 for the 36 individual items. Concurrent validity of the correlation between the BESTest and the ABC Scale was r=.636, P<.01.LimitationsFurther testing is needed to determine whether: (1) the sections of the BESTest actually detect independent balance deficits, (2) other systems important for balance control should be added, and (3) a shorter version of the test is possible by eliminating redundant or insensitive items.ConclusionsThe BESTest is easy to learn to administer, with excellent reliability and very good validity. It is unique in allowing clinicians to determine the type of balance problems to direct specific treatments for their patients. By organizing clinical balance test items already in use, combined with new items not currently available, the BESTest is the most comprehensive clinical balance tool available and warrants further development.

Project description:BACKGROUND:The 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. OBJECTIVE:The study objective was to compare the responsiveness of the BESTest with those of other clinical balance tools in people with subacute stroke. DESIGN:This was a prospective cohort study. METHODS:Forty-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. RESULTS:Participants 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. LIMITATIONS:A limitation of this study was the difference in the time periods between the first and the second assessments across participants. CONCLUSIONS:The 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.

Project description:A perturbed postural balance test can be used to investigate balance control under mechanical disturbances. The test is typically performed using purpose-built movable force plates. As instrumented treadmills become increasingly common in biomechanics laboratories and in clinical settings, these devices could be potentially used to assess and train balance control. The purpose of the study was to investigate how an instrumented treadmill applies to perturbed postural balance test. This was investigated by assessing the precision and reliability of the treadmill belt movement and the test-retest reliability of perturbed postural balance test over 5 days. Postural balance variables were calculated from the center of pressure trajectory and included peak displacement, time to peak displacement, and recovery displacement. Additionally, the study investigated short-term learning effects over the 5 days. Eight healthy participants (aged 24-43 years) were assessed for 5 consecutive days with four different perturbation protocols. Center of pressure (COP) data were collected using the force plates of the treadmill while participant and belt movements were measured with an optical motion capture system. The results show that the treadmill can reliably deliver the intended perturbations with <1% deviation in total displacement and with minimal variability between days and participants (typical errors 0.06-2.71%). However, the treadmill was not able to reach the programmed 4 m/s2 acceleration, reaching only about 75% of it. Test-retest reliability of the selected postural balance variables ranged from poor to good (ICC 0.156-0.752) with typical errors between 4.3 and 28.2%. Learning effects were detected based on linear or quadratic trends (p < 0.05) in peak displacement of the slow forward and fast backward protocols and in time to peak displacement in slow and fast backward protocols. The participants altered the initial location of the COP relative to the foot depending on the direction of the perturbation. In conclusion, the precision and accuracy of belt movement were found to be excellent. Test-retest reliability of the balance test utilizing an instrumented treadmill ranged from poor to good which is, in line with previous investigations using purpose-built devices for perturbed postural balance assessment.

Project description:BackgroundNeurocognitive testing is an important concussion evaluation tool, but for neurocognitive tests to be useful, their psychometric properties must be well established. Test-retest reliability of computerized neurocognitive tests can influence their clinical utility. The reliability for a commonly used computerized neurocognitive test, CNS Vital Signs, is not well established. The purpose of this study was to examine test-retest reliability and reliable change indices for CNS Vital Signs in a healthy, physically active college population.HypothesisCNS Vital Signs yields acceptable test-retest reliability, with greater reliability between the second and third test administration compared with between the first and second administration.Study designCohort study.Level of evidenceLevel 3.MethodsForty healthy, active volunteers (16 men, 24 women; mean age, 21.05 ± 2.17 years) reported to a clinical laboratory for 3 sessions, 1 week apart. At each session, participants were administered CNS Vital Signs. Outcomes included standard scores for the following CNS Vital Signs domains: verbal memory, visual memory, psychomotor speed, cognitive flexibility, complex attention, processing speed, reaction time, executive functioning, and reasoning.ResultsParticipants performed significantly better on the second session and/or third session than they did on the first testing session on 6 of 9 neurocognitive domains. Pearson r test-retest correlations between sessions ranged from 0.11 to 0.87. Intraclass correlation coefficients ranged from 0.10 to 0.86.ConclusionClinicians should consider using reliable change indices to account for practice effects, identify meaningful score changes due to pathology, and inform clinical decisions.Clinical relevanceThis study highlights the importance of clinicians understanding the psychometric properties of computerized neurocognitive tests when using them in the management of sport-related concussion. If CNS Vital Signs is administered twice within a small time frame (such as 1 week), athletes should be expected to improve between the first and second administration.

Dataset Information

The test-retest reliability and limits of agreement of the balance evaluation systems test (BESTest) in young people with intellectual disability.

Publications

The test-retest reliability and limits of agreement of the balance evaluation systems test (BESTest) in young people with intellectual disability.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets