A systematic review of validity and reliability assessment of measuring balance and walking at the level of International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) in people with spinal cord injury.

Zahra Hosseinzadeh, M. K. Ardakani, H. Minoonejad
{"title":"A systematic review of validity and reliability assessment of measuring balance and walking at the level of International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) in people with spinal cord injury.","authors":"Zahra Hosseinzadeh, M. K. Ardakani, H. Minoonejad","doi":"10.1080/10790268.2024.2335413","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"CONTEXT\nA spinal cord injury (SCI) is associated with a wide range of impairments in functioning, many limitations in activity, and restrictions for patients.\n\n\nOBJECTIVES\nThe present study aimed to systematically review the psychometric properties (reliability and validity) of outcome measures used to assess walking and balance in people with spinal cord injury.\n\n\nMETHODS\nDatabases such as PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Sciences were searched for relevant articles using various terms (title and abstract). Articles including the outcome measures of spinal cord injury patients and published in English from 2010 until 2021 were selected, and the quality of the selected studies was determined by applying the COSMIN checklist. Reliability and validity values were extracted, and conclusions were drawn about the psychometric quality of each measure.\n\n\nRESULTS\nA total of 1253 records were retrieved, and among them 22 potentially eligible articles were identified, 15 of which were included in the present study. The COSMIN tool (Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement Instruments) was used to evaluate the quality level of imported articles based on the inclusion criteria.\n\n\nCONCLUSIONS\nOne consideration for testing people with disabilities is to observe the reliability and validity of the instrument, which was addressed in this study in various fields. In our study, seven tools for assessing SCI were evaluated, and it was found that the 10-meter walk (10MWT) tool performs better and more easily than other tools. The Mini-BESTest tool was suggested as a reliable tool for assessing standing balance in SCI subjects.","PeriodicalId":501560,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of Spinal Cord Medicine","volume":"35 8","pages":"1-11"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Journal of Spinal Cord Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10790268.2024.2335413","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

CONTEXT A spinal cord injury (SCI) is associated with a wide range of impairments in functioning, many limitations in activity, and restrictions for patients. OBJECTIVES The present study aimed to systematically review the psychometric properties (reliability and validity) of outcome measures used to assess walking and balance in people with spinal cord injury. METHODS Databases such as PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Sciences were searched for relevant articles using various terms (title and abstract). Articles including the outcome measures of spinal cord injury patients and published in English from 2010 until 2021 were selected, and the quality of the selected studies was determined by applying the COSMIN checklist. Reliability and validity values were extracted, and conclusions were drawn about the psychometric quality of each measure. RESULTS A total of 1253 records were retrieved, and among them 22 potentially eligible articles were identified, 15 of which were included in the present study. The COSMIN tool (Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement Instruments) was used to evaluate the quality level of imported articles based on the inclusion criteria. CONCLUSIONS One consideration for testing people with disabilities is to observe the reliability and validity of the instrument, which was addressed in this study in various fields. In our study, seven tools for assessing SCI were evaluated, and it was found that the 10-meter walk (10MWT) tool performs better and more easily than other tools. The Mini-BESTest tool was suggested as a reliable tool for assessing standing balance in SCI subjects.
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
根据《国际功能、残疾和健康分类》(ICF)对脊髓损伤患者的平衡和行走能力进行有效性和可靠性评估的系统性综述。
本研究旨在系统回顾用于评估脊髓损伤患者行走和平衡能力的结果测量的心理测量学特性(可靠性和有效性)。选取了 2010 年至 2021 年期间发表的包含脊髓损伤患者结果测量指标的英文文章,并采用 COSMIN 检查表确定了所选研究的质量。结果共检索到 1253 条记录,其中确定了 22 篇可能符合条件的文章,本研究纳入了其中的 15 篇。根据纳入标准,使用 COSMIN 工具(基于共识的健康状况测量工具选择标准)来评估导入文章的质量水平。结论对残疾人进行测试的一个考虑因素是观察工具的可靠性和有效性,本研究在各个领域都涉及到了这一点。在我们的研究中,对七种评估 SCI 的工具进行了评估,结果发现 10 米步行(10MWT)工具比其他工具表现得更好、更简便。迷你BESTest工具被认为是评估SCI受试者站立平衡的可靠工具。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Professionals' knowledge, skills and confidence on using the best practices for spinal cord injury physical activity counseling in Canada and the Netherlands. Differential relationships between physical activity and pain phenotypes in individuals with spinal cord injury. Development and validation of a risk nomogram to estimate risk of hyponatremia after spinal cord injury: A retrospective single-center study. Harnessing citizen science to improve community accessibility: Project Sidewalk. A systematic review of validity and reliability assessment of measuring balance and walking at the level of International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) in people with spinal cord injury.
×
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:481959085
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