Validity and Reliability of the Community Balance and Mobility Scale in Individuals With Knee Osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is a high incidence of falls in older adults with knee osteoarthritis (OA). Adequate dynamic balance and mobility reduce the risk of falls; however, there are currently no validated, advanced tests of dynamic balance and mobility for individuals with knee OA. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine the convergent validity, known-groups validity, and test-retest reliability of a dynamic test of balance and mobility, the Community Balance and Mobility Scale (CB&M), in a knee OA population. DESIGN: A cross-sectional design was used. METHODS: Twenty-five individuals aged 50 years and older with medial knee OA and an equal number of healthy controls completed the CB&M and other tests of balance and mobility, including the Berg Balance Scale, the Timed "Up & Go" Test, a test of maximal single-leg stance time, and the 10-Meter Walk Test (self-selected and fast walking speed). Convergent validity of balance tests with the CB&M was assessed using Pearson product moment correlation coefficients, and known-groups validity was assessed using independent t tests. Test-retest reliability of the CB&M was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and standard error of measurement (SEM). RESULTS: Scores on the CB&M were significantly correlated with all measures of balance and mobility for those with knee OA. There were significant differences in CB&M scores between groups. Scores on the CB&M were highly reliable in people with knee OA (ICC=.95, 95% confidence interval [95% CI]=0.70 to 0.99; SEM=3, 95% CI=2.68 to 4.67). LIMITATIONS: Few participants had severe knee OA. CONCLUSIONS: The CB&M displayed moderate convergent validity, excellent known-groups validity, and high test-retest reliability. The CB&M can be used as a valid and reliable tool to assess dynamic balance and mobility deficits in people with knee OA.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".