[Editor's note: Both the letter to the editor by Franchignoni and Giordano and the response by Padgett and colleagues are commenting on the accepted but unedited author manuscript version of this article that was published ahead of print on June 7, 2012.]
We read with interest the article by Padgett et al1 in which they presented a new short version of the BESTest (Brief-BESTest) and compared some of its metric properties against the established BESTest2 and the Mini-BESTest.3 A few shortcomings of the authors' work and a misinterpretation of our article3 prompt us to respond.
Padgett et al explained the necessity of a new shortened version of BESTest, different from the Mini-BESTest, on the basis of anecdotal reports suggesting that the latter remains too lengthy (about 15 minutes) given increasing constraints on patient contact time in the clinic.1 Moreover, the authors felt the lack of a scale more in line with the theoretical objective of the BESTest, which is to provide a global assessment of multiple constructs that influence postural control. Thus, the authors created the Brief-BESTest, selecting the “most representative item” in each of the 6 balance domains listed in BESTest,2 based on item-total correlation.1 Although conceptually appealing, choosing …
