Test-Retest Reliability and Concurrent Validity of The Brief Balance Evaluation Systems Test (Brief-BESTest) in Typical Children Aged Five to Seven Years Old
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Introduction: The brief balance evaluation systems test (Brief-BESTest) is a balance assessment tool consisting of eight items that assess the six components of the postural control development system. It is a valid and reliable test for assessing balance for various physical conditions in different populations; however, it has not been investigated in typical school-aged children. The study aimed to establish the reliability and validity of the Brief-BESTest in children aged five to seven years old.
Methods: A total of 26 children (13 boys, 13 girls, age= 76.65 ± 9.63 months) were included, and their balances were assessed by the Brief-BESTest and pediatric balance scales (PBS). The same rater completed the test-retest of the Brief-BESTtest one week later. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) models 3,1 were used to investigate test-retest reliability. The Spearman correlation coefficient was used to determine the correlation between the Brief-BESTest and PBS. The standard error of measurement (SEM) and minimal detectable change (MDC) were also investigated. Differences were considered statistically significant when the p-value was less than 0.05.
Results: The test-retest reliability of the Brief-BESTest results ICC (3,1) values of 0.94 (95%CI = 0.86 - 0.97) with the p-value of < 0.001. The correlation between the Brief-BEST test scores and the PBS scores was the Spearman’s rho values of 0.509 with significance p values of 0.008. The SEM and MDC were 0.72 and 1.9,9, respectively.
Conclusion: Brief-BESTest has excellent test-retest reliability and moderate concurrent validity when used in typical children aged five to seven years old.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
JHSAM publishes all articles in full open access, meaning unlimited use and reuse of articles with appropriate credit to the authors.
All our articles are published under a Creative Commons "CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0". License which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium,
provided that the original work is properly cited and is used for noncommercial purposes.
References
Shumway-Cook A, Woollacott MH, Rachwani J, Santamaria V. Motor control: translating research into clinical practice. 6th ed. Philadelphia:Wolters Kluwer; 2023.
Assaiante C, Mallau S, Viel S, Jover M, Schemitz C. Development of postural control in healthy children: a functional approach. Neural Plast. 2005;12(2-3):109-18.
de Graaf-Peters VB, Blauw-Hospers CH, Dirks T, Bakker H, Bos AF, Hadders-Algra M. Development of postural control in typically developing children and children with cerebral palsy: possibilities for intervention? Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2007;31(8):1191-200.
Hedberg Å, Carlberg EB, Forssberg H, Hadders-Algra M. Development of postural adjustments in sitting position during the first half year of life. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2005;47 (5):312-20.
Woollacott M, Debû B, Mowatt M. Neuromuscular posture control in the infant and child: is vision dominant? J Mot Behav. 1987;19(2):167-86.
Mansion J. Postural control systems in developmental perspective. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 1998;22(4):465-72.
Cardosodesa CS, Boffino CC, Ramos RT. Development of postural control and maturation of sensory systems in children of different ages a cross-sectional study. Braz Jr Phys Ther. 2018;22(1):70-6.
Ludwig O, Kelm J, Hammes A, Schmitt E, Frohlich M. Neuromuscular performance of balance and posture control in childhood and adolescence. Heliyon. 2020;6(7):e04541.
Hallemans A, Klingels K, Criekinge TV, Vereeck L, Verbecque E. Reliability and concurrent validity of a modified Timed Up and Go test for healthy preschoolers. Eur J Pediatr. 2020;179(10):1579-86.
Verbecque E, Vereeck L, Boudewyns A, deHeyning PV, Hallemans A. A modified version of the Timed Up and Go test for children who are preschoolers. Pediatr Phys Ther. 2016;28(4):409-15.
Franjoine MR, Gunther JS, Taylor M. Pediatric balance scale: a modified version of the Berg Balance Scale for the school-age child with mild to moderate motor impairment. Pediatr Phys Ther. 2003;15(2):114-28.
Kolehmainen N, Stodden D, Smith AL, Larkin D. Validity and reliability of the Pediatric Balance Scale in typically developing children. Arch Phys Med Rehabili. 2018;99(6):1076-82.
Franjoine MR, Darr N, Held SL, Kott K, Young BL. The performance of children developing typically on the Pediatric Balance Scale. Pediatr Phys Ther. 2010;22(4):350-9.
Norris RA, Wilder E, Norton J. The functional reach test in 3- to 5-year-old children without disabilities. Pediatr Phys Ther. 2008;20(1):47-52.
Deshmukh AA, Ganesan S, Tedla J. Normal values of functional reach and lateral reach tests in Indian school children. Pediatr Phys Ther 2011;23(1):23-30.
Dewar R, Claus AP, Tucker K, Ware R, Johnston LM. Reproducibility of the Balance Evaluation Systems Test (BESTest) and the Mini-BESTest in school-aged children. Gait Posture. 2017;55:68-74.
Franchignoni F, Horak F, Godi M, Nardone A, Giordano A. Using psychometric techniques to improve the Balance Evaluation Systems Test: the Mini-BESTest. J Rehabil Med. 2010;42(4):323-31.
Nakkeaw C, Patite A, Sukkeawnareng K, Soonthoanon K. Reliability and validity of the Brief-Balance Evaluation Systems Test (Brief-BESTest) in children with cerebral palsy. Thai J Phys Ther. 2020;42(1): 1-11.
Pennell A, Fisher J, Patey M, Miedema ST, Stodden D, Lieberman L, et al. Measurement properties of Brief-BESTest scores from children, adolescents, and youth with visual impairments. Disabil Rehabil. 2023:1-10.
Padgett PK, Jacobs JV, Kasser SL. Is the BESTest at its best? A suggested brief version based on interrater reliability, validity, internal consistency, and theoretical construct. Phys Ther Rehabli J. 2012;92(9): 1197-207.
Godi M, Giardini M, Arcolin I, Ferrante S, Nardone A, Corna S, et al. Is the Brief-BESTest brief enough? suggested modifications based on structural validity and internal consistency. Phys Ther Rehabli J. 2019;99(11):1562-73.
Marques A, Almeida S, Carvalho J, Cruz J, Oliveira A, Jacome C. Reliability, validity, and ability to identify fall status of the Balance Evaluation Systems Test, Mini-Balance Evaluation Systems Test, and Brief-Balance Evaluation Systems Test in older people living in the community. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2016;97(12):2166-73.
American Educational Research Association. Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, USA: American Educational Research Association; 2014.
Portney LG, Watkins MP. Foundations of clinical research: applications to practice. 4th ed. Philadelphia: F.A. Davis Company; 2009.
Huang M, Pang MYC. Psychometric properties of Brief‐Balance Evaluation Systems Test (Brief‐BESTest) in evaluating balance performance in individuals with chronic stroke. Brain Behav. 2017;7(3):e00649.
Bravini E, Nardone A, Godi M, Guglielmetti S, Franchignoni F, Giordano A. Does the Brief-BESTest meet classical test theory and Rasch analysis requirements for balance assessment in people with neurological disorders? Phys Ther. 2016;96(10):1610-9.
Chan AC, Pang MYC. Assessing balance function in patients with total knee arthroplasty. Phys Ther. 2015;95(10):1397-407.
Viveiro LA, Gomes GC, Bacha JM, Junior NC, Kallas ME, Reis M, et al. Reliability, validity, and ability to identify fall status of the Berg Balance Scale, Balance Evaluation Systems Test (BESTest), Mini-BESTest, and Brief-BESTest in older adults who live in nursing homes. Geriatr Phys Ther. 2019;42(4):E45-54.