Reliability, validity, and responsiveness of three scales for measuring balance in patients with chronic stroke.
Reliability, validity, and responsiveness of three scales for measuring balance in patients with chronic stroke.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1186/s12883-018-1146-9
复制
发表时间：
2018-09-13
期刊：
影响因子：
2.6
通讯作者：
Sarkar B
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Alghadir AH;Al-Eisa ES;Anwer S;Sarkar B
对中风患者的平衡和活动能力的评估使用了各种结果测量方法。本研究的目的是检验计时起跑测试(TUG)、Berg平衡量表(BBS)和动态步态指数(DGI)用于测量慢性卒中患者平衡的重测信度、结构效度和反应性。56例慢性卒中患者(男39例，女17例)参与本研究。一位高级理疗师在两次测试中评估了包括DGI、TUG和BBS在内的三个量表的重测信度和效度。此外，在出院时对每个量表进行了第三次评估，以确定三项结果衡量标准的响应性。TUG(组内相关系数[ICC2，1] = 为0.98)、DGI(ICC2，1 = 为0.98)和BBS(ICC2，1 = 为0.99)的信度较好。TUTA、DGI和BBS的测量标准误差分别为1.16、0.71和0.98。TUG、DGI和BBS的最小可检测变化(MDC)分别为3.2、1.9和2.7。DGI与BBS(一读[r] = 0.75；二读[r] = 0.77)、TUG和BBS(一读[r] = −.52；二读[r] = −.53)以及TUG和DGI(一读[r] = 0.45；二读[r] = 0.48)之间分别存在显著的相关性。TUTA、BBS和DGI的重测信度都很好。DGI表现出比TUG和BBS略好的反应能力。然而，本研究的样本量较小，限制了研究结果的有效性。
Various outcome measures are used for the assessment of balance and mobility in patients with stroke. The purpose of the present study was to examine test-retest reliability, construct validity, and responsiveness of the Timed Up and Go Test (TUG), Berg Balance Scale (BBS), and Dynamic Gait Index (DGI) for measuring balance in patients with chronic stroke. Fifty-six patients (39 male and 17 female) with chronic stroke participated in this study. A senior physical therapist assessed the test-retest reliability and validity of three scales, including the DGI, TUG, and BBS over two testing sessions. In addition, the third assessment of each scale was taken at the time of discharge to determine the responsiveness of the three outcome measures. The reliability of the TUG (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC2,1] = 0.98), DGI (ICC2,1 = 0.98) and BBS (ICC2,1 = 0.99) were excellent. The standard error of measurement (SEM) of the TUG, DGI, and BBS were 1.16, 0.71, and 0.98, respectively. The minimal detectable change (MDC) of the TUG, DGI, and BBS were 3.2, 1.9, and 2.7, respectively. There was a significant correlation found between the DGI and BBS (first reading [r] = 0.75; second reading [r] = 0.77), TUG and BBS (first reading [r] = −.52; second reading [r] = −.53), and the TUG and DGI (first reading [r] = 0.45; second reading [r] = 0.48), respectively. The test-retest reliability of the TUG, BBS, and DGI was excellent. The DGI demonstrated slightly better responsiveness than TUG and BBS. However, the small sample size of this study limits the validity of the results.
登录
查看更多内容
DOI：
10.1016/j.apmr.2007.08.109
发表时间：
2007-11-01
影响因子：
4.3
作者：
Jonsdottir, Johanna;Cattaneo, Davide
通讯作者：
Cattaneo, Davide
影响因子：
2.2
作者：
Desrosiers, J;Noreau, L;Boutin, C
通讯作者：
Boutin, C
影响因子：
3.2
作者：
Haley, SM;Fragala-Pinkham, MA
通讯作者：
Fragala-Pinkham, MA
DOI：
10.1016/j.apmr.2012.01.014
发表时间：
2012-07-01
影响因子：
4.3
作者：
Hiengkaew, Vimonwan;Jitaree, Khanitha;Chaiyawat, Pakaratee
通讯作者：
Chaiyawat, Pakaratee
影响因子：
2.1
作者：
Flansbjer, Ulla-Britt;Blom, Johanna;Brogardh, Christina
通讯作者：
Brogardh, Christina