Multiple sclerosis and related disorders · 2026
Reliability and validity of the modified O'Sullivan functional balance test in patients with multiple sclerosis.
СтатьяНаблюдательное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Uzun Meltem, Polat Hakan, Horata Emel Taşvuran, Erel Suat
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: This cross-sectional, observational study aimed to evaluate the validity and reliability of the modified O'Sullivan Functional Balance Test (mOFB) in patients with multiple sclerosis (pwMS).
METHODS: Fifty pwMS (22 males, 28 females), aged 18 to 65 years, were included in the study. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) were used to assess the reliability of the mOFB, and the minimal detectable change (MDC) values were calculated based on ICCs obtained from repeated measurements across two sessions. The convergent validity of the mOFB was examined by analyzing its correlations with the Trunk Impairment Scale (TIS), L test, Mini-BESTest, and Berg Balance Scale (BBS).
RESULTS: The median EDSS score of the participants was 2.50 (1.50-4.00). Test-retest reliability of the mOFB test for Rater A was moderate for the sitting subscale (ICC = 0.699), good for the standing subscale (ICC = 0.829), and good for the total score (ICC = 0.892). For Rater B, test-retest reliability was moderate for the sitting subscale (ICC = 0.731), good for the standing subscale (ICC = 0.758), and excellent for the total score (ICC = 0.905). Inter-rater reliability was moderate for the sitting subscale (ICC = 0.690), good for the standing subscale (ICC = 0.785), and good for the total score (ICC = 0.895). For the mOFB total score, SEM, SEM%, MDC, and MDC% values were 0.813, 7.65, 2.253, and 21.21, respectively. The mOFB sitting subscale showed moderate correlations with TIS subscale scores (ρ = 0.548 to 0.674) and strong correlations with the TIS total score, L Test, Mini-BESTest, and BBS (ρ = 0.749 to 0.854). The mOFB standing subscale demonstrated moderate correlations with TIS subscale scores (ρ = 0.541 to 0.600) and strong correlations with the other balance measures (ρ = 0.708 to 0.851). The total mOFB score showed a very strong correlation with the Mini-BESTest (ρ = 0.912), moderate correlations with TIS subscale scores (ρ = 0.585 to 0.661), and strong correlations with the remaining balance assessments (ρ = 0.735 to 0.897).
CONCLUSION: mOFB is a reliable and valid tool for assessing balance in pwMS.
METHODS: Fifty pwMS (22 males, 28 females), aged 18 to 65 years, were included in the study. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) were used to assess the reliability of the mOFB, and the minimal detectable change (MDC) values were calculated based on ICCs obtained from repeated measurements across two sessions. The convergent validity of the mOFB was examined by analyzing its correlations with the Trunk Impairment Scale (TIS), L test, Mini-BESTest, and Berg Balance Scale (BBS).
RESULTS: The median EDSS score of the participants was 2.50 (1.50-4.00). Test-retest reliability of the mOFB test for Rater A was moderate for the sitting subscale (ICC = 0.699), good for the standing subscale (ICC = 0.829), and good for the total score (ICC = 0.892). For Rater B, test-retest reliability was moderate for the sitting subscale (ICC = 0.731), good for the standing subscale (ICC = 0.758), and excellent for the total score (ICC = 0.905). Inter-rater reliability was moderate for the sitting subscale (ICC = 0.690), good for the standing subscale (ICC = 0.785), and good for the total score (ICC = 0.895). For the mOFB total score, SEM, SEM%, MDC, and MDC% values were 0.813, 7.65, 2.253, and 21.21, respectively. The mOFB sitting subscale showed moderate correlations with TIS subscale scores (ρ = 0.548 to 0.674) and strong correlations with the TIS total score, L Test, Mini-BESTest, and BBS (ρ = 0.749 to 0.854). The mOFB standing subscale demonstrated moderate correlations with TIS subscale scores (ρ = 0.541 to 0.600) and strong correlations with the other balance measures (ρ = 0.708 to 0.851). The total mOFB score showed a very strong correlation with the Mini-BESTest (ρ = 0.912), moderate correlations with TIS subscale scores (ρ = 0.585 to 0.661), and strong correlations with the remaining balance assessments (ρ = 0.735 to 0.897).
CONCLUSION: mOFB is a reliable and valid tool for assessing balance in pwMS.