Abstract
Objectives
To examine both group- and individual-level responsiveness of the 3-point Berg Balance
Scale (BBS-3P) and 3-point Postural Assessment Scale for Stroke Patients (PASS-3P)
in patients with stroke, and to compare the responsiveness of both 3-point measures
versus their original measures (Berg Balance Scale [BBS] and Postural Assessment Scale
for Stroke Patients [PASS]) and their short forms (short-form Berg Balance Scale [SFBBS]
and short-form Postural Assessment Scale for Stroke Patients [SFPASS]) and between
the BBS-3P and PASS-3P.
Design
Data were retrieved from a previous study wherein 212 patients were assessed at 14
and 30 days after stroke with the BBS and PASS.
Setting
Medical center.
Participants
Patients (N=212) with first onset of stroke within 14 days before hospitalization.
Interventions
Not applicable.
Main Outcome Measures
Group-level responsiveness was examined by the standardized response mean (SRM), and
individual-level responsiveness was examined by the proportion of patients whose change
scores exceeded the minimal detectable change of each measure. The responsiveness
was compared using the bootstrap approach.
Results
The BBS-3P and PASS-3P had good group-level (SRM, .60 and SRM, .56, respectively)
and individual-level (48.1% and 44.8% of the patients with significant improvement,
respectively) responsiveness. Bootstrap analyses showed that the BBS-3P generally
had superior responsiveness to the BBS and SFBBS, and the PASS-3P had similar responsiveness
to the PASS and SFPASS. The BBS-3P and PASS-3P were equally responsive to both group
and individual change.
Conclusions
The responsiveness of the BBS-3P and PASS-3P was comparable or superior to those of
the original and short-form measures. We recommend the BBS-3P and PASS-3P as responsive
outcome measures of balance for individuals with stroke.
Keywords
List of abbreviations:
BBS (Berg Balance Scale), BBS-3P (3-point Berg Balance Scale), CI (confidence interval), MDC (minimal detectable change), PASS (Postural Assessment Scale for Stroke Patients), PASS-3P (3-point Postural Assessment Scale for Stroke Patients), SFBBS (short-form Berg Balance Scale), SFPASS (short-form Postural Assessment Scale for Stroke Patients), SRM (standardized response mean)To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:
Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online accessOne-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:
Subscribe to Archives of Physical Medicine and RehabilitationAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
References
- Psychometric properties of 2 simplified 3-level balance scales used for patients with stroke.Phys Ther. 2004; 84: 430-438
Chen YM, Huang YJ, Huang CY, et al. Test-retest reliabilities and minimal detectable change of two simplified 3-level balance measures in patients with stroke. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med; in press.
- Validation of a standardized assessment of postural control in stroke patients: the Postural Assessment Scale for Stroke Patients (PASS).Stroke. 1999; 30: 1862-1868
- Detecting change in patients with stroke using the Berg Balance Scale.Aust J Physiother. 2001; 47: 29-38
- Developing a short form of the Postural Assessment Scale for people with stroke.Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2007; 21: 81-90
- Developing a short form of the Berg Balance Scale for people with stroke.Phys Ther. 2006; 86: 195-204
- Measuring change over time: assessing the usefulness of evaluative instruments.J Chronic Dis. 1987; 40: 171-178
- Issues in selecting outcome measures to assess functional recovery after stroke.NeuroRx. 2006; 3: 505-524
- Comparisons of five health status instruments for orthopedic evaluation.Med Care. 1990; 28: 632-642
- Reliable change and minimum important difference (MID) proportions facilitated group responsiveness comparisons using individual threshold criteria.J Clin Epidemiol. 2004; 57: 1008-1018
- Effect sizes can be misleading: is it time to change the way we measure change?.J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2010; 81: 1044-1048
- Individual-level responsiveness of the original and short-form Postural Assessment Scale for Stroke patients.Phys Ther. 2013; 93: 1377-1382
- A prospective study of the responsiveness of the original and the short form Berg Balance Scale in people with stroke.Clin Rehabil. 2015; 29: 468-476
- Comparison of the responsiveness of the long-form and simplified Stroke Rehabilitation Assessment of Movement: group- and individual-level analysis.Phys Ther. 2015; 95: 1172-1183
- Analysis and comparison of the psychometric properties of three balance measures for stroke patients.Stroke. 2002; 33: 1022-1027
- Rating the methodological quality in systematic reviews of studies on measurement properties: a scoring system for the COSMIN checklist.Qual Life Res. 2012; 21: 651-657
- Measuring balance in the elderly: validation of an instrument.Can J Public Health. 1992; 83 Suppl 2: S7-S11
- Usefulness of the Berg Balance Scale in stroke rehabilitation: a systematic review.Phys Ther. 2008; 88: 559-566
- Methods for assessing responsiveness: a critical review and recommendations.J Clin Epidemiol. 2000; 53: 459-468
- Six-month functional recovery of stroke patients: a multi-time-point study.Int J Rehabil Res. 2015; 38: 173-180
- Evaluating the responsiveness of the Warwick Edinburgh Mental Well-Being Scale (WEMWBS): group and individual level analysis.Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2012; 10: 156
- Test-retest reproducibility of two short-form balance measures used in individuals with stroke.Int J Rehabil Res. 2012; 35: 256-262
- The relative and absolute reliability of two balance performance measures in chronic stroke patients.Disabil Rehabil. 2008; 30: 656-661
- Bootstrap methods: another look at the jackknife.Ann Stat. 1979; 7: 1-26
Article info
Publication history
Published online: September 09, 2017
Footnotes
Disclosures: none.
Identification
Copyright
© 2017 by the American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine
