English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Background  The lack of knowledge about the responsiveness and predictive validity of a set of Hierarchical Balance Short Forms (the HBSF) in people with stroke limits the utility of the HBSF in both clinical and research settings.    Objective  The purpose of this study was to investigate the responsiveness and predictive validity of the HBSF in people receiving inpatient rehabilitation after stroke.    Design  A prospective cohort study was conducted.    Methods  Sixty-six participants completed both the 6-item HBSF and the 12-item Postural Assessment Scale for Stroke (PASS) after admission to the rehabilitation ward and before hospital discharge. The standardized effect size (ES) and the standardized response mean (SRM) were used to investigate the internal responsiveness of the HBSF and the PASS. Changes in the Barthel Index and the mobility subscale of the Stroke Rehabilitation Assessment of Movement were used as the external criteria for examining external responsiveness. Moreover, the admission scores on the HBSF and the PASS and the discharge scores on the Barthel Index and mobility subscale of the Stroke Rehabilitation Assessment of Movement were analyzed to investigate the predictive validity of the 2 balance measures.    Results  The internal responsiveness of the HBSF was high (ES&amp;gt;0.9, SRM&amp;gt;1.6). The SRM of the HBSF was significantly larger than that of the PASS, whereas the ES of the HBSF was not significantly larger than that of the PASS. The external responsiveness and predictive validity of the HBSF were sufficient and similar to those of the PASS (external responsiveness: r≥.35; predictive validity: r≥.67).    Limitations  The convenience sampling of people receiving inpatient rehabilitation after stroke may limit the generalization of the results.    Conclusions  The HBSF has sufficient responsiveness and predictive validity in people receiving inpatient rehabilitation after stroke and is thus recommended for both clinicians and researchers.

Responsiveness and Predictive Validity of the Hierarchical Balance Short Forms in People With Stroke