Abstract
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.
Footnotes
Mr Godi, Dr Franchignoni, Mr Caligari, and Dr Nardone provided concept/idea/research design. Mr Godi, Dr Franchignoni, Mr Caligari, Dr Giordano, and Dr Nardone provided writing and data analysis. Mr Godi, Mr Caligari, and Ms Turcato provided data collection. Dr Franchignoni and Dr Nardone provided project management and study participants. Dr Nardone provided facilities/equipment and institutional liaisons. Ms Turcato and Dr Nardone provided consultation (including review of manuscript before submission).
This work was supported, in part, by “Giovani Ricercatori 2009” and “Progetto Strategico 2007” grants from the Italian Ministry of Health.
- Received April 14, 2012.
- Accepted September 17, 2012.
