IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0318302.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The balance evaluation systems test (BESTest), mini-BESTest and brief-BESTest as clinical tools to assess balance control across different populations: A reliability generalization meta-analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Ana-Belén Meseguer-Henarejos
  • Juan-José López-García
  • José-Antonio López-Pina
  • Ignacio Martínez-González-Moro
  • Ángel Martínez-Carrasco

Abstract

Background: The Balance Evaluation Systems Test (BESTest) and two abbreviated versions, Mini-BESTest and Brief-BESTest are used to assess functioning of balance control systems. Its reliability across different populations remains to be determined. Objective: The present study followed reliability generalization procedures to estimate an average internal consistency and inter and intra-rater reliability for the BESTest, Mini-BESTest and Brief-BEStest. In this study, the heterogeneity of reliability coefficients in each instrument is evaluated. If heterogeneity is significant, a moderator analysis is performed to identify the characteristic which explains such variability. Methods: A search of the PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Scopus and CINAHL databases was carried out to February 10th 2024. Two reviewers independently selected empirical studies published in English or Spanish that applied the BESTest, Mini-BESTest and/or Brief-BESTest and reported any reliability coefficient and/or internal consistency with data at hand. Results: Sixty-four studies reported any reliability estimate BESTest, Mini-BESTest and/or Brief-BESTest scores (N. = 5225 participants). Mean Cronbach alpha for the Mini-BESTest and Brief-BESTest (total score = 0.92) indicating no variability in estimated internal consistency. Likewise, no variability was obtained for inter-rater and intra-rater mean agreement of the BESTest (ICC = 0.97; 0.94), Mini-BESTest (ICC = 0.95; 0.94) and Brief-BESTest (ICC = 0.96; 0.95). Mean scores, standard deviation of scores, mean age, gender, population type, mean history of the disorder, disease, raters´ experience, number of raters, rater formation, continent of study and design type presented statistically significant relationships with ICC and/or Cronbach´s alpha for BESTest and the two abbreviated versions. Conclusions: The mean intraclass correlations and Cronbach alpha obtained for BESTest, Mini-BESTest and Brief-BESTest exhibited an excellent inter and intra-rater reliability and internal consistency. The average reliability obtained three scales adequate to be applied for screening balance problems in different populations. Some continuous and categorical moderator variables increase reliability and internal consistency of these scales.

Suggested Citation

  • Ana-Belén Meseguer-Henarejos & Juan-José López-García & José-Antonio López-Pina & Ignacio Martínez-González-Moro & Ángel Martínez-Carrasco, 2025. "The balance evaluation systems test (BESTest), mini-BESTest and brief-BESTest as clinical tools to assess balance control across different populations: A reliability generalization meta-analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 20(4), pages 1-36, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0318302
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0318302
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0318302
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0318302&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0318302?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0318302. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.