Structural Validity of the Mini-Balance Evaluation Systems Test (Mini-BESTest) in People With Mild to Moderate Parkinson Disease
Structural Validity of the Mini-Balance Evaluation Systems Test (Mini-BESTest) in People With Mild to Moderate Parkinson Disease
Where did the research take place?
The study site has not been established. Author addresses may differ from where the research occurred.
Huddinge, SE · Author affiliation
M. Benka Wallén, PT, PhD, Division of Physiotherapy, Department of Neurobiology, Care Sciences and Society, Karolinska Institutet, Alfred Nobels Allé 23, 141 83 Huddinge, Sweden.Location evidence
Stockholm, SE · Author affiliation
K. Sorjonen, PhD, Division of Psychology, Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.Location evidence
A plain-language reading has not been prepared for this paper yet.
Original abstract
Abstract Background The Mini-Balance Evaluation Systems Test (Mini-BESTest) is a clinical balance test comprising 14 items assumed to reflect the unidimensional construct “dynamic balance.” Objective The study objective was to examine the dimensionality of the test and the properties of each item and their interrelationships in elderly people with mild to moderate Parkinson disease (PD). Design This was a cross-sectional study in a laboratory setting. Methods A total of 112 participants (mean age=73 years) with idiopathic PD (Hoehn and Yahr stages 1–3) were assessed by physical therapists. Local independence among items was examined with Rasch modeling. Unidimensionality was tested by running a principal component analysis on the residuals. An exploratory factor analysis was used to examine the structure of the test, and a confirmatory factor analysis was used to evaluate the fit of the derived model. Results The first residual component of the principal component analysis, with an eigenvalue of greater than 2, superseded the assumption of unidimensionality. After the omission of item 7 because of convergence problems, the exploratory factor analysis suggested that a 3-factor solution best fit the data. A confirmatory factor analysis demonstrated acceptable fit of the final model, although item 14 loaded poorly on its factor. Limitations The sample size was on the lower end of what is generally recommended. Conclusions This study could not confirm that the Mini-BESTest is unidimensional. Gait items were dispersed over all factors, indicating that they may reflect different constructs. Nonetheless, as there arguably is no clinical balance test superior to the Mini-BESTest today, we recommend using the total score for assessing gross balance in this population and individual items to identify specific weaknesses. Moreover, dual tasks should be assessed separately because they are an important aspect of balance control in people with PD, reflected in only one item of the test.