التفاصيل البيبلوغرافية
| العنوان: |
Is the Brief-BESTest Brief Enough? Suggested Modifications Based on Structural Validity and Internal Consistency. |
| المؤلفون: |
Godi, Marco, Giardini, Marica, Arcolin, Ilaria, Ferrante, Simona, Nardone, Antonio, Corna, Stefano, Colombo, Roberto |
| المصدر: |
Physical Therapy; Nov2019, Vol. 99 Issue 11, p1562-1573, 12p |
| مصطلحات موضوعية: |
DISCRIMINANT analysis, POSTURAL balance, FACTOR analysis, NEUROLOGICAL disorders, SCIENTIFIC observation, RESEARCH evaluation, STATISTICS, DATA analysis, CROSS-sectional method, RETROSPECTIVE studies, RESEARCH methodology evaluation, DATA analysis software, DESCRIPTIVE statistics, MANN Whitney U Test |
| مصطلحات جغرافية: |
ITALY |
| مستخلص: |
Background The Brief Balance Evaluation Systems Test (Brief-BESTest) could be a useful tool for balance assessment. Although some psychometric characteristics have been examined, others still need to be clarified. Objective The objective was to assess the structural validity, convergent validity, discriminant validity, and internal consistency of the Brief-BESTest in neurological patients. Design This was a cross-sectional study. Methods Data were from 416 patients with neurological disease and related balance disorders. Patients were assessed with the 5-levels Activities-Specific Balance Confidence Scale (ABC 5-levels), Brief-BESTest, and some simple balance tests (ie, 1-leg stance, Timed "Up & Go" test, functional reach, and a fall history questionnaire). Three Brief-BESTest models were examined through confirmatory factor analysis, and the following indexes were calculated: Comparative Fit Index, Tucker-Lewis Index, and root-mean-square error of approximation. Convergent validity was assessed by calculating the correlation between Brief-BESTest and ABC 5-levels total scores. Receiver operating characteristics assessed the ability of each model to differentiate between people with falls and those without falls. Internal consistency was measured with Cronbach α and coefficient ω. Results Confirmatory factor analysis showed model 3 (Comparative Fit Index = 0.97; Tucker-Lewis Index = 0.95; root-mean-square error of approximation = 0.05), with item 1 removed and error covariance between items 3 and 4 and between items 5 and 6, to have a significantly better structure than models 1 and 2. The correlation between Brief-BESTest and ABC 5-levels was 0.61 (Spearman ρ) for all 3 models. The area under the curve of the receiver operating characteristics showed an acceptable accuracy (0.72) in distinguishing patients with a history of falls from those without a history of falls (95% confidence interval = 0.66–0.78) for all models and was superior to the areas under the curve of other simple balance tests (1-leg stance, Timed "Up & Go" test, functional reach). Cronbach α was good for Brief-BESTest models 1 (0.92) and 3 (0.92), but ω was greater than 0.80 only for model 3. Limitations The sample was heterogeneous. Conclusions The Brief-BESTest, after some changes, shows good validity and internal consistency in patients affected by different balance disorders. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
|
Copyright of Physical Therapy is the property of Oxford University Press / USA and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) |
| قاعدة البيانات: |
Complementary Index |
Full Text Finder