Insights Into the Mini-BESTest Scoring System: Comparison of 6 Different Structural Models.
Accidental Falls
/ prevention & control
Adult
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Cross-Sectional Studies
Disability Evaluation
Female
Gait Disorders, Neurologic
/ diagnosis
Humans
Male
Middle Aged
Models, Structural
Parkinson Disease
/ complications
Physical Therapy Modalities
Postural Balance
Predictive Value of Tests
Psychometrics
ROC Curve
Reproducibility of Results
Risk Assessment
/ methods
Sensitivity and Specificity
Accidental Falls
Balance
Outcome Measures
Parkinson Disease
ROC Curve
Journal
Physical therapy
ISSN: 1538-6724
Titre abrégé: Phys Ther
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0022623
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 10 2021
01 10 2021
Historique:
received:
01
03
2021
revised:
10
05
2021
accepted:
31
05
2021
pubmed:
3
8
2021
medline:
16
12
2021
entrez:
2
8
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
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. 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. 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). 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. This study shows that the Mini-BESTest should be used only with the original unidimensional scoring system in people with Parkinson disease.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34339510
pii: 6334618
doi: 10.1093/ptj/pzab180
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Informations de copyright
© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Physical Therapy Association. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.