Abstract
Background The Balance Evaluation Systems Test (BESTest) and Mini-BESTest are clinical examinations of balance impairment, but the tests are lengthy and the Mini-BESTest is theoretically inconsistent with the BESTest.
Objective The purpose of this study was to generate an alternative version of the BESTest that is valid, reliable, time efficient, and founded upon the same theoretical underpinnings as the original test.
Design This was a cross-sectional study.
Methods Three raters evaluated 20 people with and without a neurological diagnosis. Test items with the highest item-section correlations defined the new Brief-BESTest. The validity of the BESTest, the Mini-BESTest, and the new Brief-BESTest to identify people with or without a neurological diagnosis was compared. Interrater reliability of the test versions was evaluated by intraclass correlation coefficients. Validity was further investigated by determining the ability of each version of the examination to identify the fall status of a second cohort of 26 people with and without multiple sclerosis.
Results Items of hip abductor strength, functional reach, one-leg stance, lateral push-and-release, standing on foam with eyes closed, and the Timed “Up & Go” Test defined the Brief-BESTest. Intraclass correlation coefficients for all examination versions were greater than .98. The accuracy of identifying people from the first cohort with or without a neurological diagnosis was 78% for the BESTest versus 72% for the Mini-BESTest or Brief-BESTest. The sensitivity to fallers from the second cohort was 100% for the Brief-BESTest, 71% for the Mini-BESTest, and 86% for the BESTest, and all versions exhibited specificity of 95% to 100% to identify nonfallers.
Limitations Further testing is needed to improve the generalizability of findings.
Conclusions Although preliminary, the Brief-BESTest demonstrated reliability comparable to that of the Mini-BESTest and potentially superior sensitivity while requiring half the items of the Mini-BESTest and representing all theoretically based sections of the original BESTest.
Footnotes
All authors provided concept/idea/research design, writing, and data collection and analysis. Dr Jacobs provided project management. Dr Padgett and Dr Kasser provided study participants. Dr Jacobs and Dr Kasser provided facilities/equipment. The authors acknowledge Dr Fay Horak for providing training.
The study was funded by the University of Vermont's Department of Rehabilitation and Movement Science.
- Received February 12, 2012.
- Accepted May 30, 2012.
