4.6 Article

Comparison of the Test-Retest Reliability of the Balance Computerized Adaptive Test and a Computerized Posturography Instrument in Patients With Stroke

期刊

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.apmr.2014.03.005

关键词

Postural balance; Psychometrics; Rehabilitation; Stroke

资金

  1. Kaohsiung Municipal Ta-Tung Hospital in Taiwan [KMTTH-100-026]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To compare the test-retest reliabilities of the scores of the Balance Computerized Adaptive Test (CAT) and the Biodex Balance System in patients with stroke. Design: A repeated-measures design (at a 1-wk interval) was used to examine the test-retest reliabilities of the scores of the Balance CAT and the Biodex Balance System. Setting: One rehabilitation unit in a local hospital. Participants: Patients (N=50) with stroke for more than 6 months and undergoing outpatient rehabilitation completed the Balance CAT and the eyes open (EO)/closed (EC) tests, but only 17 patients finished the Limit of Stability (LOS) test because they were unable to reach all the targets. Interventions: Not applicable. Main Outcome Measures: The Balance CAT and 2 computerized tests of the Biodex Balance System, namely the EO/EC test and the LOS, were used to evaluate balance function. Results: The test-retest reliabilities of the scores of the Balance CAT (Pearson r=.92, minimal detectable change [MDC] percent=12.8%) was excellent. Those of the EO/EC and LOS tests were poor to good (Pearson r=.56-.85, MDC%=50.8%-126.9%). Conclusions: The test-retest reliabilities of the scores of the Balance CAT were sufficient for assessing balance function in patients with stroke. Moreover, the test-retest reliabilities of the scores of the Balance CAT, one of the functional balance measures, were superior to those of the Biodex Balance System, 1 type of computerized posturography instrument. Therefore, the Balance CAT may be a more reliable measure for clinicians and researchers to use in assessing the balance function of patients with stroke for more than 6 months. (C) 2014 by the American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据