Reliability and validity of five balance assessments battery in individuals with schizophrenia.

Hong Kong journal of occupational therapy : HKJOT Pub Date : 2024-10-17 eCollection Date: 2024-12-01 DOI:10.1177/15691861241289518
I-Chen Lin, Fu-Chen Chen, Chia-Hsiang Chen, Ming-De Chen
{"title":"Reliability and validity of five balance assessments battery in individuals with schizophrenia.","authors":"I-Chen Lin, Fu-Chen Chen, Chia-Hsiang Chen, Ming-De Chen","doi":"10.1177/15691861241289518","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Purpose:</b> This study examines the test-retest reliability, concurrent and discriminant validity of Star excursion balance test (SEBT), One-leg stance (OLS), Functional reach test (FRT), Timed up-and-go test (TUG), and Tandem walking test (TW) in individuals with schizophrenia. <b>Methods:</b> Thirteen participants with schizophrenia who had a history of falls and 13 age-matched controls with schizophrenia who had no history of falls received the five balance assessments battery to establish test-retest reliability. A force platform was administered to examine concurrent validity, while balance assessment performance between fallers and non-fallers was examined for discriminant validity. Conventional receiver operating characteristic curve analysis was used to estimate the optimal cutoff scores. <b>Results:</b> Based on the 95% confidence interval of the intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC), the test-retest reliability was good for SEBT and TUG (ICC = .92 -.99) but poor for TW (eyes open) (ICC = .15 -.74). Concurrent validity with force platform parameters showed a larger amount of significant correlations for SEBT (with r<sub>s</sub> = -.738∼-.392) and TUG (with r<sub>s</sub> = .401-.771) and low for OLS (with r<sub>s</sub> = -.494∼-.398). The discriminant validity was established for SEBT and TUG. The highest area under the curves (AUC >.8) was noted for SEBT and TUG, demonstrating better sensitivity and specificity. The cutoff score for specific assessment was also provided. <b>Conclusion:</b> The SEBT and TUG demonstrated better reliability and validity for examining the balance functions of individuals with schizophrenia. Furthermore, with the larger AUC, the SEBT and TUG showed superior performance in identifying fall risks.</p>","PeriodicalId":73249,"journal":{"name":"Hong Kong journal of occupational therapy : HKJOT","volume":"37 2","pages":"121-132"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11556252/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Hong Kong journal of occupational therapy : HKJOT","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/15691861241289518","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/12/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: This study examines the test-retest reliability, concurrent and discriminant validity of Star excursion balance test (SEBT), One-leg stance (OLS), Functional reach test (FRT), Timed up-and-go test (TUG), and Tandem walking test (TW) in individuals with schizophrenia. Methods: Thirteen participants with schizophrenia who had a history of falls and 13 age-matched controls with schizophrenia who had no history of falls received the five balance assessments battery to establish test-retest reliability. A force platform was administered to examine concurrent validity, while balance assessment performance between fallers and non-fallers was examined for discriminant validity. Conventional receiver operating characteristic curve analysis was used to estimate the optimal cutoff scores. Results: Based on the 95% confidence interval of the intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC), the test-retest reliability was good for SEBT and TUG (ICC = .92 -.99) but poor for TW (eyes open) (ICC = .15 -.74). Concurrent validity with force platform parameters showed a larger amount of significant correlations for SEBT (with rs = -.738∼-.392) and TUG (with rs = .401-.771) and low for OLS (with rs = -.494∼-.398). The discriminant validity was established for SEBT and TUG. The highest area under the curves (AUC >.8) was noted for SEBT and TUG, demonstrating better sensitivity and specificity. The cutoff score for specific assessment was also provided. Conclusion: The SEBT and TUG demonstrated better reliability and validity for examining the balance functions of individuals with schizophrenia. Furthermore, with the larger AUC, the SEBT and TUG showed superior performance in identifying fall risks.

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
精神分裂症患者五项平衡评估电池的可靠性和有效性。
目的:本研究对精神分裂症患者进行星形偏移平衡测试(SEBT)、单腿站立测试(OLS)、功能性伸展测试(FRT)、定时上下行走测试(TUG)和串联行走测试(TW)的重复测试信度、并发效度和判别效度的研究。研究方法13 名有跌倒史的精神分裂症患者和 13 名年龄匹配、无跌倒史的精神分裂症对照组患者接受了五项平衡评估,以确定测试的重复可靠性。同时,对跌倒者和非跌倒者之间的平衡评估表现进行了判别效度检查。采用传统的接收者操作特征曲线分析来估算最佳截断分数。结果显示根据类内相关系数(ICC)的 95% 置信区间,SEBT 和 TUG 的测试再测可靠性较好(ICC = .92 -.99),但 TW(睁眼)的测试再测可靠性较差(ICC = .15 -.74)。与力平台参数的并发效度显示,SEBT(rs = -.738∼-.392)和 TUG(rs = .401∼-.771)的显著相关性较大,而 OLS(rs = -.494∼-.398)的显著相关性较低。SEBT 和 TUG 具有判别效度。SEBT 和 TUG 的曲线下面积最大(AUC >.8),显示出较高的灵敏度和特异性。此外,还提供了特异性评估的临界分数。结论SEBT和TUG在检查精神分裂症患者的平衡功能方面表现出更好的可靠性和有效性。此外,SEBT 和 TUG 的 AUC 更大,在识别跌倒风险方面表现更优。
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
Re-designing the experience of transition into nursing homes: A Singapore study. Reliability and validity of five balance assessments battery in individuals with schizophrenia. Psychological and physiological benefits of horticultural therapy for Chinese older adults. Classification of life satisfaction by occupational gaps and its characteristics among older adults with care needs. Advancing readiness for change in substance use for people with substance use disorders using the Kawa model based intervention program: A quasi-experimental study.
×
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