{"title":"平衡评估系统测试(BESTest),迷你BESTest和简短BESTest作为评估不同人群平衡控制的临床工具:可靠性泛化荟萃分析。","authors":"Ana-Belén Meseguer-Henarejos, Juan-José López-García, José-Antonio López-Pina, Ignacio Martínez-González-Moro, Ángel Martínez-Carrasco","doi":"10.1371/journal.pone.0318302","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The Balance Evaluation Systems Test (BESTest) and two abbreviated versions, Mini-BESTest and Brief-BESTest are used to assess functioning of balance control systems. Its reliability across different populations remains to be determined.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>The present study followed reliability generalization procedures to estimate an average internal consistency and inter and intra-rater reliability for the BESTest, Mini-BESTest and Brief-BEStest. In this study, the heterogeneity of reliability coefficients in each instrument is evaluated. If heterogeneity is significant, a moderator analysis is performed to identify the characteristic which explains such variability.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A search of the PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Scopus and CINAHL databases was carried out to February 10th 2024. Two reviewers independently selected empirical studies published in English or Spanish that applied the BESTest, Mini-BESTest and/or Brief-BESTest and reported any reliability coefficient and/or internal consistency with data at hand.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Sixty-four studies reported any reliability estimate BESTest, Mini-BESTest and/or Brief-BESTest scores (N. = 5225 participants). Mean Cronbach alpha for the Mini-BESTest and Brief-BESTest (total score = 0.92) indicating no variability in estimated internal consistency. Likewise, no variability was obtained for inter-rater and intra-rater mean agreement of the BESTest (ICC = 0.97; 0.94), Mini-BESTest (ICC = 0.95; 0.94) and Brief-BESTest (ICC = 0.96; 0.95). Mean scores, standard deviation of scores, mean age, gender, population type, mean history of the disorder, disease, raters´ experience, number of raters, rater formation, continent of study and design type presented statistically significant relationships with ICC and/or Cronbach´s alpha for BESTest and the two abbreviated versions.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The mean intraclass correlations and Cronbach alpha obtained for BESTest, Mini-BESTest and Brief-BESTest exhibited an excellent inter and intra-rater reliability and internal consistency. The average reliability obtained three scales adequate to be applied for screening balance problems in different populations. Some continuous and categorical moderator variables increase reliability and internal consistency of these scales.</p>","PeriodicalId":20189,"journal":{"name":"PLoS ONE","volume":"20 4","pages":"e0318302"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11967966/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The balance evaluation systems test (BESTest), mini-BESTest and brief-BESTest as clinical tools to assess balance control across different populations: A reliability generalization meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Ana-Belén Meseguer-Henarejos, Juan-José López-García, José-Antonio López-Pina, Ignacio Martínez-González-Moro, Ángel Martínez-Carrasco\",\"doi\":\"10.1371/journal.pone.0318302\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The Balance Evaluation Systems Test (BESTest) and two abbreviated versions, Mini-BESTest and Brief-BESTest are used to assess functioning of balance control systems. Its reliability across different populations remains to be determined.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>The present study followed reliability generalization procedures to estimate an average internal consistency and inter and intra-rater reliability for the BESTest, Mini-BESTest and Brief-BEStest. In this study, the heterogeneity of reliability coefficients in each instrument is evaluated. If heterogeneity is significant, a moderator analysis is performed to identify the characteristic which explains such variability.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A search of the PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Scopus and CINAHL databases was carried out to February 10th 2024. Two reviewers independently selected empirical studies published in English or Spanish that applied the BESTest, Mini-BESTest and/or Brief-BESTest and reported any reliability coefficient and/or internal consistency with data at hand.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Sixty-four studies reported any reliability estimate BESTest, Mini-BESTest and/or Brief-BESTest scores (N. = 5225 participants). Mean Cronbach alpha for the Mini-BESTest and Brief-BESTest (total score = 0.92) indicating no variability in estimated internal consistency. Likewise, no variability was obtained for inter-rater and intra-rater mean agreement of the BESTest (ICC = 0.97; 0.94), Mini-BESTest (ICC = 0.95; 0.94) and Brief-BESTest (ICC = 0.96; 0.95). Mean scores, standard deviation of scores, mean age, gender, population type, mean history of the disorder, disease, raters´ experience, number of raters, rater formation, continent of study and design type presented statistically significant relationships with ICC and/or Cronbach´s alpha for BESTest and the two abbreviated versions.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The mean intraclass correlations and Cronbach alpha obtained for BESTest, Mini-BESTest and Brief-BESTest exhibited an excellent inter and intra-rater reliability and internal consistency. The average reliability obtained three scales adequate to be applied for screening balance problems in different populations. Some continuous and categorical moderator variables increase reliability and internal consistency of these scales.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":20189,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"PLoS ONE\",\"volume\":\"20 4\",\"pages\":\"e0318302\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11967966/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"PLoS ONE\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"103\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0318302\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"综合性期刊\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PLoS ONE","FirstCategoryId":"103","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0318302","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"综合性期刊","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景:平衡评估系统测试(BESTest)和两个简化版本,Mini-BESTest和Brief-BESTest用于评估平衡控制系统的功能。其在不同人群中的可靠性仍有待确定。目的:本研究采用信度概化方法估计最佳、迷你最佳和简短最佳的平均内部一致性和内部信度。在本研究中,评估了每个仪器的信度系数的异质性。如果异质性显著,则进行调节分析以确定解释这种变异性的特征。方法:检索PubMed、Embase、PsycINFO、Web of Science、Scopus和CINAHL数据库至2024年2月10日。两位审稿人独立选择以英语或西班牙语发表的实证研究,这些研究应用了BESTest、Mini-BESTest和/或Brief-BESTest,并报告了任何可靠性系数和/或与手头数据的内部一致性。结果:64项研究报告了BESTest、Mini-BESTest和/或Brief-BESTest分数的可靠性估计(n = 5225名参与者)。mini - best和brief - best的平均Cronbach alpha值(总分= 0.92)表明在估计的内部一致性中没有可变性。同样地,在评估者之间和评估者内部,BESTest的平均一致性也没有可变性(ICC = 0.97;0.94), mini - best (ICC = 0.95;0.94)和brief - best (ICC = 0.96;0.95)。均分、均分标准差、平均年龄、性别、人群类型、平均病史、疾病、评分者经历、评分者人数、评分者组成、研究地域和设计类型与best和两个简化版本的ICC和/或Cronbach’s alpha存在统计学显著关系。结论:BESTest、Mini-BESTest和Brief-BESTest的平均类内相关性和Cronbach alpha值表现出良好的组间和组内信度和内部一致性。平均信度得到三个尺度,足以用于筛选不同人群的平衡问题。一些连续和分类调节变量增加了这些量表的可靠性和内部一致性。
The balance evaluation systems test (BESTest), mini-BESTest and brief-BESTest as clinical tools to assess balance control across different populations: A reliability generalization meta-analysis.
Background: The Balance Evaluation Systems Test (BESTest) and two abbreviated versions, Mini-BESTest and Brief-BESTest are used to assess functioning of balance control systems. Its reliability across different populations remains to be determined.
Objective: The present study followed reliability generalization procedures to estimate an average internal consistency and inter and intra-rater reliability for the BESTest, Mini-BESTest and Brief-BEStest. In this study, the heterogeneity of reliability coefficients in each instrument is evaluated. If heterogeneity is significant, a moderator analysis is performed to identify the characteristic which explains such variability.
Methods: A search of the PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Scopus and CINAHL databases was carried out to February 10th 2024. Two reviewers independently selected empirical studies published in English or Spanish that applied the BESTest, Mini-BESTest and/or Brief-BESTest and reported any reliability coefficient and/or internal consistency with data at hand.
Results: Sixty-four studies reported any reliability estimate BESTest, Mini-BESTest and/or Brief-BESTest scores (N. = 5225 participants). Mean Cronbach alpha for the Mini-BESTest and Brief-BESTest (total score = 0.92) indicating no variability in estimated internal consistency. Likewise, no variability was obtained for inter-rater and intra-rater mean agreement of the BESTest (ICC = 0.97; 0.94), Mini-BESTest (ICC = 0.95; 0.94) and Brief-BESTest (ICC = 0.96; 0.95). Mean scores, standard deviation of scores, mean age, gender, population type, mean history of the disorder, disease, raters´ experience, number of raters, rater formation, continent of study and design type presented statistically significant relationships with ICC and/or Cronbach´s alpha for BESTest and the two abbreviated versions.
Conclusions: The mean intraclass correlations and Cronbach alpha obtained for BESTest, Mini-BESTest and Brief-BESTest exhibited an excellent inter and intra-rater reliability and internal consistency. The average reliability obtained three scales adequate to be applied for screening balance problems in different populations. Some continuous and categorical moderator variables increase reliability and internal consistency of these scales.
期刊介绍:
PLOS ONE is an international, peer-reviewed, open-access, online publication. PLOS ONE welcomes reports on primary research from any scientific discipline. It provides:
* Open-access—freely accessible online, authors retain copyright
* Fast publication times
* Peer review by expert, practicing researchers
* Post-publication tools to indicate quality and impact
* Community-based dialogue on articles
* Worldwide media coverage