Open AccessExamining the reliability, correlation, and validity of commonly used assessment tools to measure balance
Author(s) -
Dawson Nicole,
Dzurino Darcy,
Karleskint Melissa,
Tucker Jennifer
Publication year - 2018
Publication title -
health science reports
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.462
H-Index - 7
ISSN - 2398-8835
DOI - 10.1002/hsr2.98
Subject(s) - reliability (semiconductor) , step test , balance (ability) , mathematics , construct validity , balance test , physical therapy , medicine , physical medicine and rehabilitation , statistics , significant difference , psychometrics , power (physics) , physics , quantum mechanics
Objectives The Biodex SD Stability System has been shown to be a reliable assessment tool for postural stability. However, its ability to provide an accurate representation of balance has not been compared with functional performance measures such as the four‐square step test (FSST) and timed‐up‐and‐go test (TUG). The purpose of this study was to investigate reliability, internal consistency, and construct validity of FSST, TUG, and Biodex SD (limits of stability [LOS] and modified Clinical Test of Sensory Organization and Balance [m‐CTSIB]). Methods An observational reliability and validity study was conducted. A convenience sample of 105 healthy adults, 77 females and 28 males, mean age 24.5 years old (± 4.66 SD) performed balance assessments including the FSST, TUG, Biodex SD LOS, and m‐CTSIB. For LOS, the overall percentage and test duration were recorded. For m‐CTSIB, the overall Sway Index was recorded. Condition 1 of the m‐CTSIB represented simple postural stability. Results The Biodex SD LOS overall percentage, TUG, and FSST showed strong to excellent test‐retest reliability (ICC [3, 1] = .83 [mean 1: 58.14, mean 2: 60.54], .88 [mean 1: 6.98 seconds, mean 2: 6.91 seconds], .92 [mean 1: 6.29 seconds, mean 2: 6.14 seconds], respectively), while the Biodex SD m‐CTSIB overall percentage demonstrated strong test‐retest reliability (ICC [3, 1] = .75 [mean 1: 1.18, mean 2: 1.18]). The LOS test duration showed moderate test‐retest reliability (ICC [3, 1] = .58 [mean 1: 38.55 seconds, mean 2: 37.10 seconds]), while the m‐CTSIB condition 1 showed poor test‐retest reliability (ICC [3, 1] = .24 [mean 1: 0.63, mean 2: 0.66]). Weak construct validity was found between TUG, FSST, and Biodex SD measures of LOS and m‐CTSIB ( r values = −0.15‐0.22). Conclusion It is suggested that clinicians use more than one measure to assess different aspects of a patient's balance deficits to better guide treatment and intervention.