Reliability of the Berg Balance Scale as a Clinical Measure of Balance in Community-Dwelling Older Adults with Mild to Moderate Alzheimer Disease: A Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To measure test-retest and interrater reliability of the Berg Balance Scale (BBS) in community-dwelling adults with mild to moderate Alzheimer disease (AD). Method : A sample of 15 adults (mean age 80.20 [SD 5.03] years) with AD performed three balance tests: the BBS, timed up-and-go test (TUG), and Functional Reach Test (FRT). Both relative reliability, using the intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC), and absolute reliability, using standard error of measurement (SEM) and minimal detectable change (MDC95) values, were calculated; Bland-Altman plots were constructed to evaluate inter-tester agreement. The test-retest interval was 1 week. Results : For the BBS, relative reliability values were 0.95 (95% CI, 0.85-0.98) for test-retest reliability and 0.72 (95% CI, 0.31-0.91) for interrater reliability; SEM was 6.01 points and MDC95 was 16.66 points; and interrater agreement was 16.62 points. The BBS performed better in test-retest reliability than the TUG and FRT, tests with established reliability in AD. Between 33% and 50% of participants required cueing beyond standardized instructions because they were unable to remember test instructions. Conclusions : The BBS achieved relative reliability values that support its clinical utility, but MDC95 and agreement values indicate the scale has performance limitations in AD. Further research to optimize balance assessment for people with AD is required.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".