Inter-rater and intra-rater reliability of the Brief-BESTest in people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

OBJECTIVE:: To investigate the inter-rater and intra-rater reliability of the Brief Balance Evaluation System Test (Brief-BESTest) in people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and its correlation between the Brief-BESTest score and lung function, functional exercise capacity, functional lower limb strength, and fear of falling. DESIGN:: Prospective, single-group, observational study. SETTING:: Outpatient pulmonary rehabilitation program. SUBJECTS:: People with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease who were attending a pulmonary rehabilitation program. INTERVENTION:: Participants performed three Brief-BESTests on two separate days, assessed by two independent physiotherapists. Participants also performed a lung function test, two 6-minute walk tests, the five sit-to-stand test and completed the Fall Efficacy Scale International questionnaire. RESULTS:: Thirty participants (mean (SD) age was 72 (7), forced expiratory volume in 1 second % predicted was 47 (16%), and baseline 6-minute walk distance was 427 (90) meters) completed the study. The interclass coefficients of the inter-rater and intra-rater reliability were 0.86 and 0.96, respectively. The Brief-BESTest score was moderately correlated with the 6-minute walk distance ( r = 0.49, P < 0.01) and the five sit-to-stand test time ( r =-0.54, P < 0.01). No adverse events were reported after the completion of 90 tests in this study. CONCLUSION:: The Brief-BESTest was shown to have good inter- and intra-rater reliability for measuring balance in people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. A moderate correlation was demonstrated between the Brief-BESTest balance score with functional exercise capacity and functional lower limb strength in this population.

Reliability and Validity of the Spanish Version of the Brief-BESTest in Stroke Patients.

Background: Balance disorders and postural control treatments play an important role in fall prevention. The Brief-BESTest is a short-scale employed to evaluate balance and fall risk in different populations. Balance assessment is a fundamental element in patients with Acquired Brain Injury rehabilitation since postural alteration is one of the most frequent sequelae. The objective was to validate the Spanish version of the Brief-BESTest questionnaire in the stroke population. Methods: Subjects of both sexes aged over 18 years with a diagnosis of acute/chronic stroke were included. The BESTest, Mini-BESTest, Brief-BESTest, Berg Balance Scale, and Timed Up & Go Test were used to assess balance. The scales were implemented once. Cronbach's alpha coefficient was used to assess the internal consistency and confirmatory factorial analysis was employed to assess validity. Results: A total of 44 patients with a mean age of 65.35 years (SD = 10.665) participated. Cronbach's alpha coefficient showed a high internal consistency with a value of 0.839. In the criterion validity, there was a high positive correlation between the Brief-BESTest and BESTest (r = 0.879), Mini-BESTest (r = 0.808), and Berg Balance Scale (r = 0.711). Conclusion: The Spanish version of the Brief-BESTest scale is valid and reliable, showing adequate psychometric properties for balance assessment in patients with acute or chronic stroke.

Balance measures of mini and brief balance evaluation system tests for Iranian population.

Introduction: Falling is a serious problem for all ages. There are several tests to assess balance. Mini-BESTest and brief-BESTest are balance tests for which there are no normative values for Iranian people. We aimed to provide the normative values of mini-BESTest and brief-BESTest among healthy Iranian adults. Methods: A cross-sectional study was designed. Three hundred healthy adults (150 males and 150 females) in six age groups (18-29, 30-39, 40-49, 50-59, 60-69, +70 years) completed the tests using Persian mini-BESTest and brief-BESTest. Normative values were calculated for age groups. Results: Normative values of mini-BESTest and brief- BESTest decreased significantly with age (from 27 to 21.9 for mini-BESTest and from 22.9 to 15.4 for brief BESTest). There were no significant differences between genders except for females in 30-39 and 40-49 years age groups which scored better on brief-BESTest and mini-BESTest, respectively. Males had significantly scored better in brief- BESTest in 60-69 and ≥ 70 age groups. Conclusions: The normative values of the mini-BESTest and brief-BESTest provided for healthy Iranian adults can help clinicians when assessing subjects with balance dysfunction.

Ability of the Brief-Balance Evaluation Systems Test to evaluate balance deficits in community-dwelling older adults: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: A method for assessing balance that differentiates between balance deficit can help guide effective interventions for preventing falls in older adults. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to clarify the relationship between balance control systems and falls, and to examine the ability of the Brief-Balance Evaluation Systems Test (BESTest) to evaluate balance deficits in older adults. METHODS: Overall, 109 community-dwelling older adults participated in this study. The history of falls in the last year was investigated. Balance deficits were assessed using the Brief-BESTest, the functional reach test, the Timed up and Go Test, and the one leg balance test. We analyzed the difference between the fallers and non-fallers across two different age groups. RESULTS: Among younger-older group participants (age < 75 years), there were no significant differences between fallers and non-fallers across all variables. Among older-older group participants (age ≥ 75 years), there were significant differences in the Brief-BESTest total (p= .011; fallers, 13.5 versus non-fallers, 17.0) and section IV scores (postural responses of the Brief-BESTest; p= .026, 2.0 versus 5.0). There was no significant difference in other balance measurements. CONCLUSIONS: The postural responses assessed by the Brief-BESTest may serve important functions and may be associated with falls in older adults.

Reliability and validity of Persian versions of Mini-BESTest and Brief-BESTest in persons with Parkinson's disease.

BACKGROUND: Mini-BESTest and Brief-BESTest are used to assess balance in patients with a wide range of balance disorders. While there are Persian versions of Mini-BESTest and Brief-BESTest, the psychometric properties have not been thoroughly evaluated. This study aimed to assess the reliability and validity of the Persian versions of Mini-BESTest and Brief-BESTest in persons with Parkinson's disease (PD). METHODS: Three medical students rated videotaped performances of 49 individuals with PD on the Persian Mini-BESTest, Persian Brief-BESTest, and Berg balance scale (BBS). Healthy adults were matched with persons having PD in terms of age and gender. RESULTS: There were no floor and ceiling effects. Inter- and intra-rater reliability was excellent (ICC = 0.965-0.973). The minimal detectable changes were 2.37 and 3.47 for Persian versions of Mini-BESTest and Brief-BESTest, respectively. The Persian versions of Mini-BESTest and Brief-BESTest had very good correlations with BBS (r > 0.7) confirming construct validity. There was a very good correlation between the Mini-BESTest and the Brief-BESTest total scores (r = 0.78). There were significant differences between the persons with PD and healthy adults on both tests supporting discriminant validity. Significant differences in balance performances across Hoehn and Yahr stages were found which supported known-groups validity. CONCLUSION: The Persian versions of Mini-BESTest and Brief-BESTest are reliable and valid instruments for balance evaluation in persons with PD. Further study to determine the reliability and validity of both tests when examining patients in real-time in the clinic is warranted.

Reliability and Validity of Turkish Version of The Brief-BESTest in Stroke Patients.

BACKGROUND: The Brief-BESTest is the short version of the BESTest used to evaluate balance and fall risk in a multiple disease populations. The clinicians need practical, short application scales to evaluate the risk of falling, balance and rehabilitation results. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to investigate the validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the Brief-BESTest (Brief-BESTest-T) in stroke patients. METHODS: This study included a total of 40 subacute and chronic stroke patients (mean age of 60.28 ± 9.96 years). The Brief-BESTest, Berg Balance Scale (BBS), Timed Up and Go Test (TUG), Functional Reach Test (FRT), Falls Efficacy Scale (FES) and 10 m walking test were applied to the patients. RESULTS: A strong correlation was observed between the1st and 2nd evaluation Brief-BESTest-T total scores (r = 0.933). Cronbach's alpha coefficient was excellent. According to the correlation analysis performed to test the inter-rater reliability, a very high correlation (r = 0.906) was observed between the Brief-BESTest-T total scores. A high correlation was found between the Brief-BESTest-T and BBS and TUG, while a moderate correlation was found between the FRT, FES, and 10 m walking test. The clinical cut-off point for the Brief-BESTest - T was determined to be 9 points with an AUC of 0.872. There were no floor and ceiling effects found. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that the Brief-BESTest-T had excellent internal consistency, intra-rater, and inter-rater reliability. Its concurrent, discriminant, and known-groups validity were also good and had no substantial floor and ceiling effects.

Responsiveness and Minimal Clinically Important Difference of the Brief-BESTest in People With COPD After Pulmonary Rehabilitation.

OBJECTIVE: he Brief-Balance Evaluation Systems Test (Brief-BESTest) is a comprehensive, reliable, and valid balance test that provides valuable information to guide balance training in people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Its clinical interpretability is, however, currently limited, because cutoff points to identify clinically relevant changes in people with COPD after pulmonary rehabilitation are still lacking. This study aimed to establish the responsiveness and minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for the Brief-BESTest in people with COPD after pulmonary rehabilitation (PR). METHODS: A secondary analysis of data from 2 previous studies was conducted. The modified British Medical Research Council (mMRC) dyspnea scale, the 6-Minute Walk Test (6-MWT), and the Brief-BESTest (0-24 points) were collected in people with COPD pre/post a 12-week PR program including balance training. The MCID was computed using anchor- and distribution-based methods. Changes in the 6-MWT and the mMRC were assessed and used as anchors. The pooled MCID was computed using the arithmetic weighted mean (2/3 anchor- and 1/3 distribution-based methods). RESULTS: Seventy-one people with COPD (69 years [SD = 8]; 76% male; FEV1 = 49.8%predicted [SD = 18%]) were included. There was a significant improvement in the Brief-BESTest after PR (mean difference = 3 points [SD = 3]). Significant correlations were found between the Brief-BESTest and the mMRC (r = -.31) and the 6-MWT (r = .37). The pooled MCID was 3.3 points. CONCLUSION: An improvement of at least 3 points in the Brief-BESTest in people with COPD will enhance the interpretability of PR effects on balance performance of this population and guide tailored interventions. IMPACT: The Brief-BESTest outcome measure is comprehensive, easily administered, and simple to interpret in clinical practice. This study represents a significant contribution toward the clinical interpretation of changes in balance in people with COPD following PR.

Using the Brief-BESTest paired with a novel algorithm to provide targeted balance interventions for people with subacute stroke: a feasibility study.

BACKGROUND: Balance is a common mobility limitation following stroke, but determination of the most effective balance-related plan of care can be difficult due to multiple balance impairments that vary between individuals. The Brief-BESTest is a validated outcome measure for balance based on six systems of postural control. It may also be a useful tool to guide clinicians in their balance plan of care design. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to determine the feasibility of a quantitative balance plan of care for patients with subacute stroke, using a novel algorithm that utilizes the scoring design of the Brief-BESTest. The authors hypothesized that this plan of care could create targeted balance interventions among this population. METHODS: Eligible patients with subacute stroke at an inpatient rehab facility completed the Brief-BESTest within 1 week of admission. The subjects participated in specific interventions based on test section scores during their rehab stay. RESULTS: Five subjects completed testing and participated in targeted balance interventions, addressing three to five systems of postural control. Subjects demonstrated improved Brief-BESTest overall scores by 2, 1, 7, 4, and 6 points from admission to discharge. Improvements in section scores were primarily seen in the systems of postural control identified by the algorithm. All subjects improved in Functional Independence Measure (FIM™)30 scores for locomotion (walking and stairs) by 5, 6, 7, 6, and 9 points, respectively. All subjects were discharged to the community. CONCLUSION: Our observational study found this method of assessment and intervention to be feasible in the subacute stroke population and was associated with improved balance scores and improved functional mobility. Further study is warranted to determine effectiveness and efficiency.