ORIGINAL RESEARCH| Volume 102, ISSUE 11, P2102-2108, November 2021

Sensitivity to Change and Responsiveness of the Original and the Shortened Version of the Community Balance and Mobility Scale for Young Seniors

Published:April 28, 2021DOI:



      To examine sensitivity to change and responsiveness of the Community Balance and Mobility Scale (CBM) and shortened CBM (s-CBM).


      Secondary analysis using data of a randomized controlled trial.


      General community.


      Young community-dwelling seniors aged 61-70 years (N=134; mean age, 66.2±2.5y).


      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.


      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.


      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.


      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 access
      One-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 to Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect


        • Beaton DE
        Understanding the relevance of measured change through studies of responsiveness.
        Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000; 25: 3192-3199
        • Liang MH
        Longitudinal construct validity: establishment of clinical meaning in patient evaluative instruments.
        Med Care. 2000; 38 (Ii84-90)
        • Liang MH
        • Lew RA
        • Stucki G
        • Fortin PR
        • Daltroy L
        Measuring clinically important changes with patient-oriented questionnaires.
        Med Care. 2002; 40 (Ii45-51)
        • de Yébenes Prous MJ
        • Rodríguez Salvanés F
        • Carmona Ortells L
        [Responsiveness of outcome measures] [Spanish].
        Reumatol Clin. 2008; 4: 240-247
        • Yost KJ
        • Eton DT
        Combining distribution- and anchor-based approaches to determine minimally important differences: the FACIT experience.
        Eval Health Prof. 2005; 28: 172-191
        • Revicki D
        • Hays RD
        • Cella D
        • Sloan J
        Recommended methods for determining responsiveness and minimally important differences for patient-reported outcomes.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 2008; 61: 102-109
        • Jaeschke R
        • Singer J
        • Guyatt GH
        Measurement of health status: ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. 1989; 10: 407-415
        • Berg K
        • Wood-Dauphine S
        • Williams J
        • Gayton D
        Measuring balance in the elderly: preliminary development of an instrument.
        Physiother Can. 1989; 41: 304-311
        • Tinetti ME
        Performance-oriented assessment of mobility problems in elderly patients.
        J Am Geriatr Soc. 1986; 34: 119-126
        • O'Hoski S
        • Winship B
        • Herridge L
        • et al.
        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
        • Bergquist R
        • Weber M
        • Schwenk M
        • et al.
        Performance-based clinical tests of balance and muscle strength used in young seniors: a systematic literature review.
        BMC Geriatr. 2019; 19: 9
        • Reis HT
        • Judd CM
        Handbook of research methods in social and personality psychology.
        Cambridge University Press, London, United Kingdom2000
        • Balasubramanian CK
        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
        • Gordt K
        • Mikolaizak AS
        • Nerz C
        • et al.
        German version of the Community Balance and Mobility Scale: translation and evaluation of measurement properties.
        Z Gerontol Geriatr. 2019; 52: 28-36
        • Weber M
        • Van Ancum J
        • Bergquist R
        • et al.
        Concurrent validity and reliability of the Community Balance and Mobility scale in young-older adults.
        BMC Geriatr. 2018; 18: 156
        • Gordt K
        • Mikolaizak AS
        • Taraldsen K
        • et al.
        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
        • Knorr S
        • Brouwer B
        • Garland SJ
        Validity of the Community Balance and Mobility Scale in community-dwelling persons after stroke.
        Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2010; 91: 890-896
        • Chinsongkram B
        • Chaikeeree N
        • Saengsirisuwan V
        • Horak FB
        • Boonsinsukh R
        Responsiveness of the Balance Evaluation Systems Test (BESTest) in people with subacute stroke.
        Phys Ther. 2016; 96: 1638-1647
        • Taraldsen K
        • Mikolaizak AS
        • Maier AB
        • et al.
        Protocol for the PreventIT feasibility randomised controlled trial of a lifestyle-integrated exercise intervention in young older adults.
        BMJ Open. 2019; 9e023526
        • Taraldsen K
        • Mikolaizak AS
        • Maier AB
        • et al.
        Digital technology to deliver a lifestyle-integrated exercise intervention in young seniors: the PreventIT Feasibility randomized controlled trial.
        BMJ Open. 2019; 9e023526
        • Nasreddine ZS
        • Phillips NA
        • Bedirian V
        • et al.
        The Montreal Cognitive Assessment, MoCA: a brief screening tool for mild cognitive impairment.
        J Am Geriatr Soc. 2005; 53: 695-699
        • Schwenk M
        • Bergquist R
        • Boulton E
        • et al.
        The adapted lifestyle-integrated functional exercise program for preventing functional decline in young seniors: development and initial evaluation.
        Gerontology. 2019; 65: 362-374
        • Podsiadlo D
        • Richardson S
        The timed “Up & Go”: a test of basic functional mobility for frail elderly persons.
        J Am Geriatr Soc. 1991; 39: 142-148
        • Ferrucci L
        • Bandinelli S
        • Benvenuti E
        • et al.
        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
        • Jones CJ
        • Rikli RE
        • Beam WC
        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
      1. Howe JA, Inness EL. Community Balance & Mobility Scale. Available at: Accessed June 7, 2021.

        • Kim H-Y
        Statistical notes for clinical researchers: assessing normal distribution (2) using skewness and kurtosis.
        Restor Dent Endod. 2013; 38: 52-54
        • Hartmann-Tews I
        • Tischer U
        • Combrink C
        Bewegtes Alter (n): Sozialstrukturelle Analysen von Sport im Alter.
        Verlag Barbara Budrich, Leverkusen, Germany2012
        • Stratford PW
        • Binkley JM
        • Riddle DL
        • Guyatt GH
        Sensitivity to change of the Roland-Morris back pain questionnaire: part 1.
        Phys Ther. 1998; 78: 1186-1196
        • Wang Y-C
        • Hart DL
        • Stratford PW
        • Mioduski JE
        Baseline dependency of minimal clinically important improvement.
        Phys Ther. 2011; 91: 675-688
        • Pardasaney PK
        • Latham NK
        • Jette AM
        • et al.
        Sensitivity to change and responsiveness of four balance measures for community-dwelling older adults.
        Phys Ther. 2012; 92: 388-397
        • Liang MH
        • Fossel AH
        • Larson MG
        Comparisons of five health status instruments for orthopedic evaluation.
        Med Care. 1990; 28: 632-642
        • Efron B
        Better bootstrap confidence intervals.
        J Am Stat Assoc. 1987; 82: 171-185
        • Husted JA
        • Cook RJ
        • Farewell VT
        • Gladman DD
        Methods for assessing responsiveness: a critical review and recommendations.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 2000; 53: 459-468
        • Yüksel S
        • Demir P
        • Alkan A
        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
        • Cella D
        • Eton DT
        • Fairclough DL
        • et al.
        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
        • Kazis LE
        • Anderson JJ
        • Meenan RF
        Effect sizes for interpreting changes in health status.
        Med Care. 1989; 27: S178-S189
        • Fritz S
        • Lusardi M
        White paper: walking speed: the sixth vital sign.
        J Geriatr Phys Ther. 2009; 32: 2-5
        • Shumway-Cook A
        • Brauer S
        • Woollacott M
        Predicting the probability for falls in community-dwelling older adults using the Timed Up & Go Test.
        Phys Ther. 2000; 80: 896-903
        • Eton DT
        • Cella D
        • Yost KJ
        • et al.
        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
        • Hauer KA
        • Kempen GI
        • Schwenk M
        • et al.
        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