Background: The Brief Balance Evaluation Systems Test (Brief-BESTest) could be a useful tool for balance assessment. Although some psychometric characteristics have been examined, others still need to be clarified.
Objective: The objective was to assess the structural validity, convergent validity, discriminant validity, and internal consistency of the Brief-BESTest in neurological patients.
Design: This was a cross-sectional study.
Methods: Data were from 416 patients with neurological disease and related balance disorders. Patients were assessed with the 5-levels Activities-Specific Balance Confidence Scale (ABC 5-levels), Brief-BESTest, and some simple balance tests (ie, 1-leg stance, Timed "Up & Go" test, functional reach, and a fall history questionnaire). Three Brief-BESTest models were examined through confirmatory factor analysis, and the following indexes were calculated: Comparative Fit Index, Tucker-Lewis Index, and root-mean-square error of approximation. Convergent validity was assessed by calculating the correlation between Brief-BESTest and ABC 5-levels total scores. Receiver operating characteristics assessed the ability of each model to differentiate between people with falls and those without falls. Internal consistency was measured with Cronbach α and coefficient ω.
Results: Confirmatory factor analysis showed model 3 (Comparative Fit Index = 0.97; Tucker-Lewis Index = 0.95; root-mean-square error of approximation = 0.05), with item 1 removed and error covariance between items 3 and 4 and between items 5 and 6, to have a significantly better structure than models 1 and 2. The correlation between Brief-BESTest and ABC 5-levels was 0.61 (Spearman ρ) for all 3 models. The area under the curve of the receiver operating characteristics showed an acceptable accuracy (0.72) in distinguishing patients with a history of falls from those without a history of falls (95% confidence interval = 0.66-0.78) for all models and was superior to the areas under the curve of other simple balance tests (1-leg stance, Timed "Up & Go" test, functional reach). Cronbach α was good for Brief-BESTest models 1 (0.92) and 3 (0.92), but ω was greater than 0.80 only for model 3.
Limitations: The sample was heterogeneous.
Conclusions: The Brief-BESTest, after some changes, shows good validity and internal consistency in patients affected by different balance disorders.
© 2019 American Physical Therapy Association.