MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2587787473 · doi:10.1002/brb3.649

Psychometric properties of Brief‐Balance Evaluation Systems Test (Brief‐<scp>BEST</scp>est) in evaluating balance performance in individuals with chronic stroke

2017· article· en· W2587787473 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueBrain and Behavior · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicBalance, Gait, and Falls Prevention
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersHong Kong Polytechnic University
KeywordsBerg Balance ScaleCronbach's alphaStroke (engine)Convergent validityCeiling effectPsychologyPhysical therapyBalance (ability)Physical medicine and rehabilitationObservational studyPsychometricsConcurrent validityMedicineInternal consistencyClinical psychologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Objective To examine the psychometric properties of the Brief‐Balance Evaluation Systems Test (Brief‐ BEST est) in individuals with chronic stroke. Materials and Methods This was an observational study with repeated measurements involving 50 participants with chronic stroke [mean ( SD ) age: 59.2 (7.3) years]. Each participant with stroke was evaluated with the Brief‐ BEST est, Berg balance scale ( BBS ), Postural Assessment Scale for Stroke Patients ( PASS ), Fugl‐Meyer Motor Assessment ( FMA ), Chedoke‐McMaster Stroke Assessment ( CMSA ), Montreal Cognitive Assessment (Mo CA ), and Geriatric Depression Scale ( GDS ). Two raters (rater 1 and 2) provided the Brief‐ BEST est scores of the first 27 participants independently to establish inter‐rater reliability. After 15 min of rest, the same 27 participants were evaluated with the Brief‐ BEST est again by rater 1 to establish intra‐rater reliability. The Brief‐ BEST est scores of the stroke group were also compared with those of the control group [ n = 27, mean ( SD ) age: 56.7 (7.7) years]. Results The Brief‐ BEST est had no substantial floor and ceiling effects, good intra‐rater ( ICC 2,1 = 0.974) and inter‐rater ( ICC 2,1 = 0.980) reliability and internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha = 0.818). The minimal detectable change at 95% confidence level was 2 points. The Brief‐ BEST est showed moderate to very strong correlations with other balance ( BBS and PASS ) and motor impairment ( FMA , CMSA ) measures ( r s = .547–.911, p &lt; .001), thus revealing good concurrent and convergent validity. Its correlation with measures that evaluated other constructs was weaker (Mo CA : r s = .437, p = .002) or non‐significant ( GDS : r s = −0.152, p = .292), thus showing good discriminant validity. Good known‐groups validity was established, as the Brief‐ BEST est was effective in distinguishing participants with stroke from controls (cutoff score: &lt;18, area under curve: 0.942), and individuals with stroke who required assistive device for their outdoor mobility from those who did not (cutoff score &lt;14, area under curve: 0.810). Conclusions The Brief‐ BEST est has good reliability and validity in assessing balance function in individuals with chronic stroke.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.853

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.081
GPT teacher head0.387
Teacher spread0.305 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it