Abstract
Objective
To examine sensitivity to change and responsiveness of the Community Balance and Mobility
Scale (CBM) and shortened CBM (s-CBM).
Design
Secondary analysis using data of a randomized controlled trial.
Setting
General community.
Participants
Young community-dwelling seniors aged 61-70 years (N=134; mean age, 66.2±2.5y).
Interventions
Participants underwent 12 months of exercise intervention.
Main Outcome Measures
CBM and s-CBM. Sensitivity to change was assessed using standardized response mean
(SRM) and paired t tests as appropriate. Responsiveness was assessed using 2 minimal important difference
(MID) estimates. Analyses were conducted for the full sample and for the subgroups
“high-balance” and “low-balance,” divided by median split.
Results
Inferential statistics revealed a significant CBM (P<.001) and s-CBM (P<.001) improvement within the full sample and the subgroups (high-balance: P=.001, P=.019; low-balance: P<.001, P<.001). CBM and s-CBM were moderately sensitive to change (SRM, 0.48 vs 0.38) within
the full sample. In the high-balance subgroup, moderate SRM values (0.70) were found
for the CBM and small values for the s-CBM (0.29). In the low-balance subgroup, moderate
SRM values were found for the CBM (0.67) and high values for the s-CBM (0.80). For
the full sample, CBM and s-CBM exceeded the lower but not the higher MID value. In
the high-balance subgroup, the CBM exceeded both MID values, but the s-CBM exceeded
only the lower. In the low-balance subgroup, CBM and s-CBM exceeded both MID values.
Conclusions
The CBM is a suitable tool to detect intervention-related changes of balance and mobility
in young, high-performing seniors. Both versions of the CBM scale show good sensitivity
to change and responsiveness, particularly in young seniors with low balance.
Keywords
List of abbreviations:
CBM (Community Balance and Mobility Scale), CI (confidence interval), MID (minimal important difference), s-CBM (shortened Community Balance and Mobility Scale), 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
- Understanding the relevance of measured change through studies of responsiveness.Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000; 25: 3192-3199
- Longitudinal construct validity: establishment of clinical meaning in patient evaluative instruments.Med Care. 2000; 38 (Ii84-90)
- Measuring clinically important changes with patient-oriented questionnaires.Med Care. 2002; 40 (Ii45-51)
- [Responsiveness of outcome measures] [Spanish].Reumatol Clin. 2008; 4: 240-247
- Combining distribution- and anchor-based approaches to determine minimally important differences: the FACIT experience.Eval Health Prof. 2005; 28: 172-191
- Recommended methods for determining responsiveness and minimally important differences for patient-reported outcomes.J Clin Epidemiol. 2008; 61: 102-109
- Measurement of health status: ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. 1989; 10: 407-415
- Measuring balance in the elderly: preliminary development of an instrument.Physiother Can. 1989; 41: 304-311
- Performance-oriented assessment of mobility problems in elderly patients.J Am Geriatr Soc. 1986; 34: 119-126
- Increasing the clinical utility of the BESTest, mini-BESTest, and brief-BESTest: normative values in Canadian adults who are healthy and aged 50 years or older.Phys Ther. 2014; 94: 334-342
- Performance-based clinical tests of balance and muscle strength used in young seniors: a systematic literature review.BMC Geriatr. 2019; 19: 9
- Handbook of research methods in social and personality psychology.Cambridge University Press, London, United Kingdom2000
- The community balance and mobility scale alleviates the ceiling effects observed in the currently used gait and balance assessments for the community-dwelling older adults.J Geriatr Phys Ther. 2015; 38: 78-89
- German version of the Community Balance and Mobility Scale: translation and evaluation of measurement properties.Z Gerontol Geriatr. 2019; 52: 28-36
- Concurrent validity and reliability of the Community Balance and Mobility scale in young-older adults.BMC Geriatr. 2018; 18: 156
- Creating and validating a shortened version of the Community Balance and Mobility Scale for application in people who are 61 to 70 years of age.Phys Ther. 2020; 100: 180-191
- Validity of the Community Balance and Mobility Scale in community-dwelling persons after stroke.Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2010; 91: 890-896
- Responsiveness of the Balance Evaluation Systems Test (BESTest) in people with subacute stroke.Phys Ther. 2016; 96: 1638-1647
- Protocol for the PreventIT feasibility randomised controlled trial of a lifestyle-integrated exercise intervention in young older adults.BMJ Open. 2019; 9e023526
- Digital technology to deliver a lifestyle-integrated exercise intervention in young seniors: the PreventIT Feasibility randomized controlled trial.BMJ Open. 2019; 9e023526
- The Montreal Cognitive Assessment, MoCA: a brief screening tool for mild cognitive impairment.J Am Geriatr Soc. 2005; 53: 695-699
- The adapted lifestyle-integrated functional exercise program for preventing functional decline in young seniors: development and initial evaluation.Gerontology. 2019; 65: 362-374
- The timed “Up & Go”: a test of basic functional mobility for frail elderly persons.J Am Geriatr Soc. 1991; 39: 142-148
- Subsystems contributing to the decline in ability to walk: bridging the gap between epidemiology and geriatric practice in the InCHIANTI study.J Am Geriatr Soc. 2000; 48: 1618-1625
- A 30-s chair-stand test as a measure of lower body strength in community-residing older adults.Res Q Exerc Sport. 1999; 70: 113-119
Howe JA, Inness EL. Community Balance & Mobility Scale. Available at: https://www.tbims.org/combi/cbm/index.html. Accessed June 7, 2021.
- Statistical notes for clinical researchers: assessing normal distribution (2) using skewness and kurtosis.Restor Dent Endod. 2013; 38: 52-54
- Bewegtes Alter (n): Sozialstrukturelle Analysen von Sport im Alter.Verlag Barbara Budrich, Leverkusen, Germany2012
- Sensitivity to change of the Roland-Morris back pain questionnaire: part 1.Phys Ther. 1998; 78: 1186-1196
- Baseline dependency of minimal clinically important improvement.Phys Ther. 2011; 91: 675-688
- Sensitivity to change and responsiveness of four balance measures for community-dwelling older adults.Phys Ther. 2012; 92: 388-397
- Comparisons of five health status instruments for orthopedic evaluation.Med Care. 1990; 28: 632-642
- Better bootstrap confidence intervals.J Am Stat Assoc. 1987; 82: 171-185
- Methods for assessing responsiveness: a critical review and recommendations.J Clin Epidemiol. 2000; 53: 459-468
- Is conventionally calculated anchor-based minimum clinically important difference value catches the real clinical increment? Determining the situations that make the answer “no” by a simulation study.Proc Int Conf Appl Stat. 2019; 1: 522-528
- What is a clinically meaningful change on the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Lung (FACT-L) Questionnaire? Results from Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Study 5592.J Clin Epidemiol. 2002; 55: 285-295
- Effect sizes for interpreting changes in health status.Med Care. 1989; 27: S178-S189
- White paper: walking speed: the sixth vital sign.J Geriatr Phys Ther. 2009; 32: 2-5
- Predicting the probability for falls in community-dwelling older adults using the Timed Up & Go Test.Phys Ther. 2000; 80: 896-903
- A combination of distribution- and anchor-based approaches determined minimally important differences (MIDs) for four endpoints in a breast cancer scale.J Clin Epidemiol. 2004; 57: 898-910
- Validity and sensitivity to change of the falls efficacy scales international to assess fear of falling in older adults with and without cognitive impairment.Gerontology. 2011; 57: 462-472
Article info
Publication history
Published online: April 28, 2021
Accepted:
March 29,
2021
Received in revised form:
March 4,
2021
Received:
December 10,
2020
Footnotes
The dataset is from PreventIT. PreventIT was supported by the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation program (grant no. 689238). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the European Union. The funders played no role in the design, conduct, or reporting of this study.
Clinical Trial Registration No.: NCT03065088.
Disclosures: none.
Identification
Copyright
© 2021 The American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
