Berg平衡量表作为轻度至中度阿尔茨海默病社区老年人临床平衡测量的可靠性:一项初步研究

S. Muir-Hunter, Laura J Graham, Manuel Montero Odasso
{"title":"Berg平衡量表作为轻度至中度阿尔茨海默病社区老年人临床平衡测量的可靠性:一项初步研究","authors":"S. Muir-Hunter, Laura J Graham, Manuel Montero Odasso","doi":"10.3138/ptc.2014-32","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"PURPOSE\nTo measure test-retest and interrater reliability of the Berg Balance Scale (BBS) in community-dwelling adults with mild to moderate Alzheimer disease (AD). Method : A sample of 15 adults (mean age 80.20 [SD 5.03] years) with AD performed three balance tests: the BBS, timed up-and-go test (TUG), and Functional Reach Test (FRT). Both relative reliability, using the intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC), and absolute reliability, using standard error of measurement (SEM) and minimal detectable change (MDC95) values, were calculated; Bland-Altman plots were constructed to evaluate inter-tester agreement. The test-retest interval was 1 week. Results : For the BBS, relative reliability values were 0.95 (95% CI, 0.85-0.98) for test-retest reliability and 0.72 (95% CI, 0.31-0.91) for interrater reliability; SEM was 6.01 points and MDC95 was 16.66 points; and interrater agreement was 16.62 points. The BBS performed better in test-retest reliability than the TUG and FRT, tests with established reliability in AD. Between 33% and 50% of participants required cueing beyond standardized instructions because they were unable to remember test instructions. Conclusions : The BBS achieved relative reliability values that support its clinical utility, but MDC95 and agreement values indicate the scale has performance limitations in AD. Further research to optimize balance assessment for people with AD is required.","PeriodicalId":390485,"journal":{"name":"Physiotherapy Canada. Physiotherapie Canada","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-06-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"40","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Reliability of the Berg Balance Scale as a Clinical Measure of Balance in Community-Dwelling Older Adults with Mild to Moderate Alzheimer Disease: A Pilot Study.\",\"authors\":\"S. Muir-Hunter, Laura J Graham, Manuel Montero Odasso\",\"doi\":\"10.3138/ptc.2014-32\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"PURPOSE\\nTo measure test-retest and interrater reliability of the Berg Balance Scale (BBS) in community-dwelling adults with mild to moderate Alzheimer disease (AD). Method : A sample of 15 adults (mean age 80.20 [SD 5.03] years) with AD performed three balance tests: the BBS, timed up-and-go test (TUG), and Functional Reach Test (FRT). Both relative reliability, using the intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC), and absolute reliability, using standard error of measurement (SEM) and minimal detectable change (MDC95) values, were calculated; Bland-Altman plots were constructed to evaluate inter-tester agreement. The test-retest interval was 1 week. Results : For the BBS, relative reliability values were 0.95 (95% CI, 0.85-0.98) for test-retest reliability and 0.72 (95% CI, 0.31-0.91) for interrater reliability; SEM was 6.01 points and MDC95 was 16.66 points; and interrater agreement was 16.62 points. The BBS performed better in test-retest reliability than the TUG and FRT, tests with established reliability in AD. Between 33% and 50% of participants required cueing beyond standardized instructions because they were unable to remember test instructions. Conclusions : The BBS achieved relative reliability values that support its clinical utility, but MDC95 and agreement values indicate the scale has performance limitations in AD. Further research to optimize balance assessment for people with AD is required.\",\"PeriodicalId\":390485,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Physiotherapy Canada. Physiotherapie Canada\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2015-06-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"40\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Physiotherapy Canada. Physiotherapie Canada\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3138/ptc.2014-32\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Physiotherapy Canada. Physiotherapie Canada","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3138/ptc.2014-32","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 40

摘要

目的探讨社区生活成人轻、中度阿尔茨海默病(AD)患者Berg平衡量表(BBS)的重测信度和解释者信度。方法:15例AD患者(平均年龄80.20 [SD 5.03]岁)进行了三种平衡测试:BBS、定时起跑测试(TUG)和功能到达测试(FRT)。用类内相关系数(ICC)计算相对信度,用测量标准误差(SEM)和最小可检测变化(MDC95)值计算绝对信度;构建Bland-Altman图来评估测试者之间的一致性。测试-重测间隔为1周。结果:对于BBS,重测信度的相对信度值为0.95 (95% CI, 0.85-0.98),互测信度的相对信度值为0.72 (95% CI, 0.31-0.91);SEM为6.01分,MDC95为16.66分;相互间的一致度为16.62分。BBS在重测信度上优于TUG和FRT,后者在AD中具有已建立的信度。33%到50%的参与者因为记不住测试说明而需要超出标准说明的提示。结论:BBS获得了支持其临床应用的相对可靠性值,但MDC95和一致性值表明该量表在AD中存在性能局限性。需要进一步的研究来优化AD患者的平衡评估。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Reliability of the Berg Balance Scale as a Clinical Measure of Balance in Community-Dwelling Older Adults with Mild to Moderate Alzheimer Disease: A Pilot Study.
PURPOSE To measure test-retest and interrater reliability of the Berg Balance Scale (BBS) in community-dwelling adults with mild to moderate Alzheimer disease (AD). Method : A sample of 15 adults (mean age 80.20 [SD 5.03] years) with AD performed three balance tests: the BBS, timed up-and-go test (TUG), and Functional Reach Test (FRT). Both relative reliability, using the intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC), and absolute reliability, using standard error of measurement (SEM) and minimal detectable change (MDC95) values, were calculated; Bland-Altman plots were constructed to evaluate inter-tester agreement. The test-retest interval was 1 week. Results : For the BBS, relative reliability values were 0.95 (95% CI, 0.85-0.98) for test-retest reliability and 0.72 (95% CI, 0.31-0.91) for interrater reliability; SEM was 6.01 points and MDC95 was 16.66 points; and interrater agreement was 16.62 points. The BBS performed better in test-retest reliability than the TUG and FRT, tests with established reliability in AD. Between 33% and 50% of participants required cueing beyond standardized instructions because they were unable to remember test instructions. Conclusions : The BBS achieved relative reliability values that support its clinical utility, but MDC95 and agreement values indicate the scale has performance limitations in AD. Further research to optimize balance assessment for people with AD is required.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信