Reliability, Validity, and Responsiveness of the Mini-Balance Evaluation Systems Test in Ambulatory Individuals with Multiple Sclerosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to determine the reliability, validity, and responsiveness of the Mini-Balance Evaluation Systems Test (MBT) in persons with multiple sclerosis (pwMS). Method: A total of 32 pwMS completed a questionnaire on disease severity, the Activities-specific Balance Confidence Scale (ABC), and the MBT. The MBT was re-administered 1 week later. Results: The interrater and test–retest reliability of the total MBT and subscales were excellent. The standard error of measurement for the total MBT, calculated from test–retest and interrater reliability, respectively, was 1.32 and 1.07. The minimal detectable change (MDC) for the total MBT was 3.74; the MDC for the subscales ranged from 0.98 (sensory) to 2.38 (gait). The correlations between individual subscale scores and the total MBT, among subscales, and between the total MBT and disease severity and ABC were excellent. Correlations between the total MBT and age, MS type, and fall and imbalance histories were moderate. Disease severity and ABC scores were the strongest predictors of MBT score. No floor effects were found. Ceiling effects were found for two subscales, but not for the total MBT. Conclusions: The MBT is reliable and valid in pwMS. MDC values will facilitate assessing the effectiveness of treatment. Because ceiling effects were found for two subscales, but not the total MBT, it is recommended that clinicians administer the MBT in its entirety.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".