Measurement properties of Brief-BESTest scores from children, adolescents, and youth with visual impairments.

IF 2 4区 医学 Q1 REHABILITATION Disability and Rehabilitation Pub Date : 2024-10-01 Epub Date: 2023-12-01 DOI:10.1080/09638288.2023.2288935
Adam Pennell, Jenna Fisher, Matthew Patey, Sally Taunton Miedema, David Stodden, Lauren Lieberman, Collin Webster, Ali Brian
{"title":"Measurement properties of Brief-BESTest scores from children, adolescents, and youth with visual impairments.","authors":"Adam Pennell, Jenna Fisher, Matthew Patey, Sally Taunton Miedema, David Stodden, Lauren Lieberman, Collin Webster, Ali Brian","doi":"10.1080/09638288.2023.2288935","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Purpose:</b> This study aimed to vet the measurement properties of Brief-BESTest scores in children, adolescents, and youth with visual impairment and blindness (YVI). <b>Methods:</b> A cross-sectional sample of YVI (<i>N</i> = 101) completed the Brief-BESTest, a modified version of the Y-Balance Test, the 360-degree turn test, bipedal quiet stance, and Activity-Specific Balance Confidence Scales. Thirty-seven YVI completed test-retest of the Brief-BESTest using a one-year interval. Using classical test theory, various forms of total and item-level Brief-BESTest score reliability and validity were investigated in YVI. <b>Results:</b> All inter-rater reliability coefficients were ≥ .80. When considering the eight items of the Brief-BESTest, 27 of the 28 possible correlations were statistically significant (<i>p</i><.05). Various internal consistency and item difficulty results were strong. When taking total Brief-BESTest scores and their association with the complementary balance tasks/metrics into account, 11 of 13 associations were statistically significant (<i>p</i><.05) providing strong convergent validity evidence. Being multimorbid and degree of vision significantly predicted total Brief-BESTest scores (<i>p</i><.001) suggesting construct (i.e. known groups) validity. Numerous test-retest results (e.g. coefficients, limits of agreement) following the one-year interval were indicative of score stability. <b>Conclusion:</b> Practitioners and researchers should have confidence in, and consider adopting, the Brief-BESTest to examine multidimensional balance in YVI.</p>","PeriodicalId":50575,"journal":{"name":"Disability and Rehabilitation","volume":" ","pages":"4797-4806"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Disability and Rehabilitation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09638288.2023.2288935","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/12/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: This study aimed to vet the measurement properties of Brief-BESTest scores in children, adolescents, and youth with visual impairment and blindness (YVI). Methods: A cross-sectional sample of YVI (N = 101) completed the Brief-BESTest, a modified version of the Y-Balance Test, the 360-degree turn test, bipedal quiet stance, and Activity-Specific Balance Confidence Scales. Thirty-seven YVI completed test-retest of the Brief-BESTest using a one-year interval. Using classical test theory, various forms of total and item-level Brief-BESTest score reliability and validity were investigated in YVI. Results: All inter-rater reliability coefficients were ≥ .80. When considering the eight items of the Brief-BESTest, 27 of the 28 possible correlations were statistically significant (p<.05). Various internal consistency and item difficulty results were strong. When taking total Brief-BESTest scores and their association with the complementary balance tasks/metrics into account, 11 of 13 associations were statistically significant (p<.05) providing strong convergent validity evidence. Being multimorbid and degree of vision significantly predicted total Brief-BESTest scores (p<.001) suggesting construct (i.e. known groups) validity. Numerous test-retest results (e.g. coefficients, limits of agreement) following the one-year interval were indicative of score stability. Conclusion: Practitioners and researchers should have confidence in, and consider adopting, the Brief-BESTest to examine multidimensional balance in YVI.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
儿童、青少年和青少年视力障碍的brief - best分数的测量特性。
目的:探讨brief - best评分在儿童、青少年和青少年视力障碍和失明(YVI)中的测量特性。方法:YVI的横断面样本(N = 101)完成了brief - best测试,Y-Balance测试的修改版本,360度转弯测试,两足安静站立和特定活动平衡信心量表。37个YVI以一年的间隔完成了brief - best的重新测试。运用经典测试理论,研究了YVI中各种形式的总体和项目级brief - best得分的信度和效度。结果:所有量表间信度系数均≥0.80。在考虑brief - best的8个项目时,28个可能的相关性中有27个具有统计显著性(ppp结论:从业者和研究人员应该对brief - best有信心,并考虑采用brief - best来检查YVI的多维平衡。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Disability and Rehabilitation
Disability and Rehabilitation 医学-康复医学
CiteScore
5.00
自引率
9.10%
发文量
415
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: Disability and Rehabilitation along with Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology are international multidisciplinary journals which seek to encourage a better understanding of all aspects of disability and to promote rehabilitation science, practice and policy aspects of the rehabilitation process.
期刊最新文献
Perceptions, attitudes, and lived experiences of therapists with lower limb robotic exoskeletons in stroke rehabilitation: a systematic review of qualitative studies. Validating wearable sensors as an assessment tool for Parkinson's disease. Effectiveness of digital combined decongestive therapy for lower extremity lymphedema: a prospective single-arm clinical trial with follow-up. Gait rehabilitation outcomes with EksoNR: an exploratory study comparing progressive vs. non-progressive neurological impairments. Getting to work with a physical disability: gaps in disability, transportation, and workers' compensation return-to-work policies and programs.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1