المؤلفون: Antonio Nardone, Marco Godi, Franco Franchignoni, Andrea Giordano, Simone Guglielmetti, Elisabetta Bravini

المصدر: Physical Therapy. 96:1610-1619

مصطلحات موضوعية: Adult, Male, Ordinal data, 030506 rehabilitation, Psychometrics, Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation, Classical test theory, Disability Evaluation, 03 medical and health sciences, 0302 clinical medicine, Cronbach's alpha, Statistics, Humans, Postural Balance, Reliability (statistics), Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Rasch model, Reproducibility of Results, Middle Aged, Exploratory factor analysis, Test (assessment), Female, Nervous System Diseases, Factor Analysis, Statistical, 0305 other medical science, Psychology, 030217 neurology & neurosurgery

الوصف: BackgroundThe Brief Balance Evaluation Systems Test (Brief-BESTest) was recently proposed as a clinical tool for quickly measuring balance disorders, but its measurement properties warrant investigation.ObjectiveThe study objective was to perform a detailed analysis of the psychometric properties of the Brief-BESTest by means of Classical Test Theory and Rasch analysis.DesignThis was an observational measurement study.MethodsBrief-BESTest data were collected from a sample of 244 participants. Internal consistency was analyzed with the Cronbach α and item-to-total correlations. Test-retest reliability and interrater reliability were investigated in a subgroup of 21 participants. The minimum detectable change at the 95% confidence level was calculated. Scale dimensionality was examined through Horn parallel analysis; this step was followed by exploratory factor analysis for ordinal data. Finally, data were examined using Rasch analysis (rating scale model).ResultsThe Cronbach α was .89, and all item-to-total correlations were greater than .40. Test-retest reliability had an intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) (2,1) of .94, and interrater reliability had an ICC (2,1) of .90. The minimum detectable change at the 95% confidence level was 4.30 points. The unidimensionality of the test was confirmed, but 1 item showed low communality. Rasch analysis revealed the inadequacy of response categories, 5 misfitting items, minor mistargeting, moderate person reliability (.80), and 2 pairs of locally dependent items.LimitationsThe sample was a cross-section of people who had balance disorders from different neurological etiologies and were recruited consecutively at a single rehabilitation facility.ConclusionsThe Brief-BESTest was confirmed to have some acceptable-to-good reliability indexes when calculated according to Classical Test Theory, but the scale showed fairly limited sensitivity to change. Rasch analysis indicated that item selection should be improved from a psychometric point of view. Item redundancy needs to be reduced, and the metric coverage of the measured construct needs to be improved with new items.

الوصول الحر: https://explore.openaire.eu/search/publication?articleId=doi_dedup___::4b6a279b3f299e952d2f61f6e4be99b9Test
https://doi.org/10.2522/ptj.20150550Test

المؤلفون: Simona Ferrante, Marica Giardini, Marco Godi, Stefano Corna, Ilaria Arcolin, Roberto Colombo, Antonio Nardone

المصدر: Physical therapy. 99(11)

مصطلحات موضوعية: Adult, Male, 030506 rehabilitation, Psychometrics, Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation, 03 medical and health sciences, Disability Evaluation, 0302 clinical medicine, Cronbach's alpha, Surveys and Questionnaires, Statistics, Humans, Postural Balance, Mathematics, Aged, Retrospective Studies, Receiver operating characteristic, Discriminant validity, Reproducibility of Results, Middle Aged, Confidence interval, Confirmatory factor analysis, Cross-Sectional Studies, Convergent validity, Scale (social sciences), Accidental Falls, Female, Nervous System Diseases, 0305 other medical science, 030217 neurology & neurosurgery

الوصف: 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.

الوصول الحر: https://explore.openaire.eu/search/publication?articleId=doi_dedup___::13da019b9dd206cedd7a7a737f58be43Test
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31348513Test

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.)

المؤلفون: Antonio Nardone, Marco Caligari, Anna Maria Turcato, Marco Godi, Andrea Giordano, Franco Franchignoni

المصدر: Physical Therapy. 93:158-167

مصطلحات موضوعية: Male, medicine.medical_specialty, Psychometrics, Receiver operating characteristic, Intraclass correlation, Reproducibility of Results, Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation, Confidence interval, Disability Evaluation, Inter-rater reliability, Standard error, ROC Curve, Central Nervous System Diseases, Berg Balance Scale, Physical therapy, medicine, Humans, Ceiling effect, Female, Prospective Studies, Psychology, Postural Balance, Physical Therapy Modalities, Aged, Balance (ability)

الوصف: Background Recently, a new tool for assessing dynamic balance impairments has been presented: the 14-item Mini-BESTest. Objective The aim of this study was to compare the psychometric performance of the Mini-BESTest and the Berg Balance Scale (BBS). Design A prospective, single-group, observational design was used in the study. Methods Ninety-three participants (mean age=66.2 years, SD=13.2; 53 women, 40 men) with balance deficits were recruited. Interrater (3 raters) and test-retest (1–3 days) reliability were calculated using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). Responsiveness and minimal important change were assessed (after 10 sessions of physical therapy) using both distribution-based and anchor-based methods (external criterion: the 15-point Global Rating of Change [GRC] scale). Results At baseline, neither floor effects nor ceiling effects were found in either the Mini-BESTest or the BBS. After treatment, the maximum score was found in 12 participants (12.9%) with BBS and in 2 participants (2.1%) with Mini-BESTest. Test-retest reliability for total scores was significantly higher for the Mini-BESTest (ICC=.96) than for the BBS (ICC=.92), whereas interrater reliability was similar (ICC=.98 versus .97, respectively). The standard error of measurement (SEM) was 1.26 and the minimum detectable change at the 95% confidence level (MDC95) was 3.5 points for Mini-BESTest, whereas the SEM was 2.18 and the MDC95 was 6.2 points for the BBS. In receiver operating characteristic curves, the area under the curve was 0.92 for the Mini-BESTest and 0.91 for the BBS. The best minimal important change (MIC) was 4 points for the Mini-BESTest and 7 points for the BBS. After treatment, 38 participants evaluated with the Mini-BESTest and only 23 participants evaluated with the BBS (out of the 40 participants who had a GRC score of ≥3.5) showed a score change equal to or greater than the MIC values. Limitations The consecutive sampling method drawn from a single rehabilitation facility and the intrinsic weakness of the GRC for calculating MIC values were limitations of the study. Conclusions The 2 scales behave similarly, but the Mini-BESTest appears to have a lower ceiling effect, slightly higher reliability levels, and greater accuracy in classifying individual patients who show significant improvement in balance function.

الوصول الحر: https://explore.openaire.eu/search/publication?articleId=doi_dedup___::bf18f867978bbc45214f4aa55180d300Test
https://doi.org/10.2522/ptj.20120171Test

المؤلفون: Bravini, Elisabetta^1,2, Nardone, Antonio³, Godi, Marco⁴ marco.godi@fsm.it, Guglielmetti, Simone⁵, Franchignoni, Franco⁶, Giordano, Andrea⁷

المصدر: Physical Therapy. Oct2016, Vol. 96 Issue 10, p1610-1619. 10p.

مصطلحات موضوعية: *CONFIDENCE intervals, *STATISTICAL correlation, *POSTURAL balance, *FACTOR analysis, *RESEARCH methodology, *NEUROLOGICAL disorders, *PSYCHOMETRICS, *RELIABILITY (Personality trait), *RESEARCH funding, *STATISTICS, *SAMPLE size (Statistics), *DATA analysis, *STATISTICAL reliability, *INTER-observer reliability, *MULTITRAIT multimethod techniques, *RESEARCH methodology evaluation, *DATA analysis software, *INTRACLASS correlation

مصطلحات جغرافية: ITALY

مستخلص: Background. The Brief Balance Evaluation Systems Test (Brief-BESTest) was recently proposed as a clinical tool for quickly measuring balance disorders, but its measurement properties warrant investigation. Objective. The study objective was to perform a detailed analysis of the psychometric properties of the Brief-BESTest by means of Classical Test Theory and Rasch analysis. Design. This was an observational measurement study. Methods. Brief-BESTest data were collected from a sample of 244 participants. Internal consistency was analyzed with the Cronbach a and item-to-total correlations. Test-retest reliability and interrater reliability were investigated in a subgroup of 21 participants. The minimum detectable change at the 95% confidence level was calculated. Scale dimensionality was examined through Horn parallel analysis; this step was followed by exploratory factor analysis for ordinal data. Finally, data were examined using Rasch analysis (rating scale model). Results. The Cronbach a was .89, and all item-to-total correlations were greater than .40. Test-retest reliability had an intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) (2,1) of .94, and interrater reliability had an ICC (2,1) of .90. The minimum detectable change at the 95% confidence level was 4.30 points. The unidimensionality of the test was confirmed, but 1 item showed low communality. Rasch analysis revealed the inadequacy of response categories, 5 misfitting items, minor mistargeting, moderate person reliability (.80), and 2 pairs of locally dependent items. Limitations. The sample was a cross-section of people who had balance disorders from different neurological etiologies and were recruited consecutively at a single rehabilitation facility. Conclusions. The Brief-BESTest was confirmed to have some acceptable-to-good reliability indexes when calculated according to Classical Test Theory, but the scale showed fairly limited sensitivity to change. Rasch analysis indicated that item selection should be improved from a psychometric point of view. Item redundancy needs to be reduced, and the metric coverage of the measured construct needs to be improved with new items. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

المؤلفون: Godi, Marco, Franchignoni, Franco, Caligari, Marco, Giordano, Andrea, Turcato, Anna Maria, Nardone, Antonio

المصدر: Physical Therapy; Feb2013, Vol. 93 Issue 2, p158-167, 10p, 2 Charts, 4 Graphs

مصطلحات موضوعية: CONFIDENCE intervals, POSTURAL balance, HEMIPLEGIA, LONGITUDINAL method, RESEARCH methodology, MULTIPLE sclerosis, NEUROLOGICAL disorders, PSYCHOMETRICS, RESEARCH evaluation, RESEARCH funding, STATISTICAL sampling, SCALES (Weighing instruments), STATISTICS, VESTIBULAR apparatus diseases, SAMPLE size (Statistics), INTER-observer reliability, RECEIVER operating characteristic curves, RESEARCH methodology evaluation, DATA analysis software, DESCRIPTIVE statistics

مستخلص: Background. Recently, a new tool for assessing dynamic balance impairments has been presented: the 14-item Mini-BESTest. Objective. The aim of this study was to compare the psychometric performance of the Mini-BESTest and the Berg Balance Scale (BBS). Design. A prospective, single-group, observational design was used in the study. Methods. Ninety-three participants (mean age=66.2 years, SD=132; 53 women, 40 men) with balance deficits were recruited. Interrater (3 raters) and test-retest (1-3 days) reliability were calculated using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). Responsiveness and minimal important change were assessed (after 10 sessions of physical therapy) using both distribution-based and anchor-based methods (external criterion: the 15-point Global Rating of Change [GRC] scale). Results. At baseline, neither floor effects nor ceiling effects were found in either the Mini-BESTest or the BBS. After treatment, the maximum score was found in 12 participants (12.9%) with BBS and in 2 participants (2.1%) with Mini-BESTest. Test- retest reliability for total scores was significantly higher for the Mini-BESTest (ICC =.96) than for the BBS (ICC =.92), whereas interrater reliability was similar (ICC=.98 versus .97, respectively). The standard error of measurement (SEM) was 1.26 and the minimum detectable change at the 95% confidence level (MDC95) was 3.5 points for Mini-BESTest, whereas the SEM was 2.18 and the MDC95 was 6.2 points for the BBS. In receiver operating characteristic curves, the area under the curve was 0.92 for the Mini-BESTest and 0.91 for the BBS. The best minimal important change (MIC) was 4 points for the Mini-BESTest and 7 points for the BBS. After treatment, 38 participants evaluated with the Mini-BESTest and only 23 participants evaluated with the BBS (out of the 40 participants who had a GRC score of >3-5) showed a score change equal to or greater than the MIC values. Limitations. The consecutive sampling method drawn from a single rehabilitation facility and the intrinsic weakness of the GRC for calculating MIC values were limitations of the study. Conclusions. The 2 scales behave similarly, but the Mini-BESTest appears to have a lower ceiling effect, slightly higher reliability levels, and greater accuracy in classifying individual patients who show significant improvement in balance function. [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.)