Abstract
Background The reliability and convergent validity of the Balance Evaluation Systems Test (BESTest) in people with subacute stroke have been established, but its responsiveness to rehabilitation has not been examined.
Objective The study objective was to compare the responsiveness of the BESTest with those of other clinical balance tools in people with subacute stroke.
Design This was a prospective cohort study.
Methods Forty-nine people with subacute stroke (mean age=57.8 years, SD=11.8) participated in this study. Five balance measures—the BESTest, the Mini-BESTest, the Berg Balance Scale, the Postural Assessment Scale for Stroke Patients, and the Community Balance and Mobility Scale (CB&M)—were used to measure balance performance before and after rehabilitation or before discharge from the hospital, whichever came first. The internal responsiveness of each balance measure was classified with the standardized response mean (SRM); changes in Berg Balance Scale scores of greater than 7 were used as the external standard for determining the external responsiveness. Analysis of the receiver operating characteristic curve was used to determine the accuracy and cutoff scores for identifying participants with balance improvement.
Results Participants received 13.7 days (SD=9.3, range=5–44) of physical therapy rehabilitation. The internal responsiveness of all balance measures, except for the CB&M, was high (SRM=0.9–1.2). The BESTest had a higher SRM than the Mini-BESTest and the CB&M, indicating that the BESTest was more sensitive for detecting balance changes than the Mini-BESTest and the CB&M. In addition, compared with other balance measures, the BESTest had no floor, ceiling, or responsive ceiling effects. The results also indicated that the percentage of participants with no change in scores after rehabilitation was smaller with the BESTest than with the Mini-BESTest and the CB&M. With regard to the external responsiveness, the BESTest had higher accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and posttest accuracy than the Postural Assessment Scale for Stroke Patients and the CB&M for identifying participants with balance improvement. Changes in BESTest scores of 10% or more indicated changes in balance performance.
Limitations A limitation of this study was the difference in the time periods between the first and the second assessments across participants.
Conclusions The BESTest was the most sensitive scale for assessing balance recovery in participants with subacute stroke because of its high internal and external responsiveness and lack of floor and ceiling effects.
Footnotes
Dr Chinsongkram, Dr Horak, and Dr Boonsinsukh provided concept/idea/research design. Dr Chinsongkram, Dr Saengsirisuwan, Dr Horak, and Dr Boonsinsukh provided writing. Dr Chinsongkram and Dr Chaikeeree provided data collection. Dr Chinsongkram and Dr Boonsinsukh provided data analysis. Dr Boonsinsukh provided project management, fund procurement, institutional liaisons, and administrative support. Dr Chaikeeree and Dr Boonsinsukh provided facilities/equipment. Dr Saengsirisuwan, Dr Horak, and Dr Boonsinsukh provided consultation (including review of manuscript before submission).
The authors thank Prasat Neurological Institute, Department of Medical Services, Ministry of Public Health, Bangkok, Thailand, for offering facilities and space. They express sincere gratitude to Lawan Panichareon and physical therapists at the Rehabilitation Medicine Department, Prasat Neurological Institute, for helping recruit the participants.
This study received ethical approval from the Human Research Protection Committee at Prasat Neurological Institute Research Center, Bangkok, Thailand.
This project was supported by the Thailand Research Fund, the Office of the Higher Education Commission, Srinakharinwirot University (grant no. RSA5580002), and by NIH and VA Merit Award 1075 (grant no. AG006457).
- Received November 10, 2015.
- Accepted April 14, 2016.
- © 2016 American Physical Therapy Association
Issue highlights
