Physical therapy · 2021
Insights Into the Mini-BESTest Scoring System: Comparison of 6 Different Structural Models.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Godi Marco, Arcolin Ilaria, Leavy Breiffni, Giardini Marica, Corna Stefano, Franzén Erika
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: The Mini-Balance Evaluation Systems Test (Mini-BESTest) is a balance scale common to clinical practice, but different scoring has been proposed, that is, total score and/or subsections. This study aimed to investigate Mini-BESTest validity by comparing 6 structural models and to establish the best model for discriminating fallers from nonfallers, that is, those who did or did not report at least 2 falls in the 6 months before evaluation.
METHODS: In this cross-sectional validation study, data from 709 individuals with idiopathic Parkinson disease (Hoehn and Yahr stages 1-3) were analyzed. Individuals were evaluated with the Mini-BESTest, and fall history was recorded. Construct, convergent, and discriminant validity and reliability of the 6 models were analyzed. The ability of the models to adequately identify individuals with or without a history of falls was tested with receiving operating characteristic curves.
RESULTS: Confirmatory factor analysis showed that the unidimensional models and the 4-factor solutions showed the best fit indexes. Conversely, second-order models, which allowed reporting of both total and subsections, did not converge. Most models and factors showed a low convergent validity (average variance extracted values <0.5). Correlations among the anticipatory postural adjustments factor with both the sensory orientation and the dynamic gait factors of multidimensional models were high (r ≥ 0.85). Unidimensional model reliability was good, whereas low values were found in one-half of the subsections. Finally, both unidimensional models showed a large area under the receiving operating characteristic curve (0.81).
CONCLUSION: The original unidimensional Mini-BESTest model-with a total score of 28-showed the highest validity and reliability and was best at discriminating fallers from nonfallers. Conversely, its 4 subsections should not be reported separately, because they were highly correlated and had low reliability; therefore, they are not actually capable of measuring different aspects of balance.
IMPACT: This study shows that the Mini-BESTest should be used only with the original unidimensional scoring system in people with Parkinson disease.
METHODS: In this cross-sectional validation study, data from 709 individuals with idiopathic Parkinson disease (Hoehn and Yahr stages 1-3) were analyzed. Individuals were evaluated with the Mini-BESTest, and fall history was recorded. Construct, convergent, and discriminant validity and reliability of the 6 models were analyzed. The ability of the models to adequately identify individuals with or without a history of falls was tested with receiving operating characteristic curves.
RESULTS: Confirmatory factor analysis showed that the unidimensional models and the 4-factor solutions showed the best fit indexes. Conversely, second-order models, which allowed reporting of both total and subsections, did not converge. Most models and factors showed a low convergent validity (average variance extracted values <0.5). Correlations among the anticipatory postural adjustments factor with both the sensory orientation and the dynamic gait factors of multidimensional models were high (r ≥ 0.85). Unidimensional model reliability was good, whereas low values were found in one-half of the subsections. Finally, both unidimensional models showed a large area under the receiving operating characteristic curve (0.81).
CONCLUSION: The original unidimensional Mini-BESTest model-with a total score of 28-showed the highest validity and reliability and was best at discriminating fallers from nonfallers. Conversely, its 4 subsections should not be reported separately, because they were highly correlated and had low reliability; therefore, they are not actually capable of measuring different aspects of balance.
IMPACT: This study shows that the Mini-BESTest should be used only with the original unidimensional scoring system in people with Parkinson disease.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
Accidental FallsAdultAgedAged, 80 and overCross-Sectional StudiesDisability EvaluationFemaleGait Disorders, NeurologicHumansMaleMiddle AgedModels, StructuralParkinson DiseasePhysical Therapy ModalitiesPostural BalancePredictive Value of TestsPsychometricsROC CurveReproducibility of ResultsRisk AssessmentSensitivity and Specificity