Reliability and Validity of Turkish Version of The Brief-BESTest in Stroke Patients
Topics in Stroke Rehabilitation, vol.28, no.7, pp.488-497, 2021 (SCI-Expanded, Scopus)
- Publication Type: Article / Article
- Volume: 28 Issue: 7
- Publication Date: 2021
- Doi Number: 10.1080/10749357.2020.1841424
- Journal Name: Topics in Stroke Rehabilitation
- Journal Indexes: Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED), Scopus, CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE
- Page Numbers: pp.488-497
- Keywords: brief-bestest, postural balance, reliability, Stroke, validity
- Ankara Yıldırım Beyazıt University Affiliated: No
Abstract
Background: The Brief-BESTest is the short version of the BESTest used to evaluate balance and fall risk in a multiple disease populations. The clinicians need practical, short application scales to evaluate the risk of falling, balance and rehabilitation results. Objective: This study aims to investigate the validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the Brief-BESTest (Brief-BESTest–T) in stroke patients. Methods: This study included a total of 40 subacute and chronic stroke patients (mean age of 60.28 ± 9.96 years). The Brief-BESTest, Berg Balance Scale (BBS), Timed Up and Go Test (TUG), Functional Reach Test (FRT), Falls Efficacy Scale (FES) and 10 m walking test were applied to the patients. Results: A strong correlation was observed between the1st and 2nd evaluation Brief-BESTest–T total scores (r = 0.933). Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was excellent. According to the correlation analysis performed to test the inter-rater reliability, a very high correlation (r = 0.906) was observed between the Brief-BESTest–T total scores. A high correlation was found between the Brief-BESTest–T and BBS and TUG, while a moderate correlation was found between the FRT, FES, and 10 m walking test. The clinical cut-off point for the Brief-BESTest–T was determined to be 9 points with an AUC of 0.872. There were no floor and ceiling effects found. Conclusions: This study showed that the Brief-BESTest-T had excellent internal consistency, intra-rater, and inter-rater reliability. Its concurrent, discriminant, and known-groups validity were also good and had no substantial floor and ceiling effects.