ArticleJournal of physical therapy science2018
Structural validity of Balance Evaluation Systems Test assessed using factor and Rasch analyses in patients with stroke.
Article in Journal of physical therapy science, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Measurement Properties of the BESTest Scale in People With Neurological Conditions: A Systematic Review With Meta-Analysis.Physical therapy · 2025Pooled it
- Effects of body weight support training on balance and walking function in stroke patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in neurology · 2024Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
[Purpose] The Balance Evaluation Systems Test (BESTest) is a comprehensive assessment tool, although it is not confined for use in stroke patients. This study aimed to determine the structural validity of the BESTest in self-ambulatory patients with stroke using both factor and Rasch analyses. [Participants and Methods] This retrospective study included 140 self-ambulatory patients with stroke. The structural validity of the BESTest was analyzed according to principal component, exploratory factor, Rasch, confirmatory factor, and correlation analyses. [Results] The analytical results supported a four-factor model comprising 25 items. The four factors included dynamic postural control with gait, static postural control, stepping reaction, and stability limits in sitting. Evidence of high structural validity and reliable internal consistency suggested that the 25-item BESTest is valid and reliable. Each factor was significantly correlated with lower extremity motor function and walking ability. [Conclusion] Eleven items in the BESTest were poorly correlated, and the remaining 25 items were grouped into four factors that demonstrated good structural validity for patients with stroke. Further studies should validate the applicability of the 25-item BESTest four-factor model in a larger sample of patients with stroke in a clinical setting.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.