Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36982075›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2023

Differential Item Functioning of the Mini-BESTest Balance Measure: A Rasch Analysis Study.

Antonio Caronni, Michela Picardi, Stefano Scarano, Peppino Tropea, Giulia Gilardone, Nadia Bolognini, Valentina Redaelli, Giuseppe Pintavalle, Evdoxia Aristidou, Paola Antoniotti and 1 more

Full text read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Validation of the Czech adaptation of Mini-BESTest into clinical practice.European journal of physical and rehabilitation medicine · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Frontiers in neurology · 2023
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Antonio CaronniIRCCS Istituto Auxologico Italiano, Department of Neurorehabilitation Sciences, Ospedale San Luca, 20149 Milano, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-3051-1031
Michela PicardiDepartment of Neurorehabilitation Sciences, Casa di Cura Igea, 20144 Milano, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-7996-1530
Stefano ScaranoIRCCS Istituto Auxologico Italiano, Department of Neurorehabilitation Sciences, Ospedale San Luca, 20149 Milano, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-9217-4117
Peppino TropeaDepartment of Neurorehabilitation Sciences, Casa di Cura Igea, 20144 Milano, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-8238-9619
Giulia GilardoneDepartment of Neurorehabilitation Sciences, Casa di Cura Igea, 20144 Milano, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-1482-9891
Nadia BologniniIRCCS Istituto Auxologico Italiano, Department of Neurorehabilitation Sciences, Ospedale San Luca, 20149 Milano, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-2921-8658
Valentina RedaelliDepartment of Neurorehabilitation Sciences, Casa di Cura Igea, 20144 Milano, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-4002-7625
Giuseppe PintavalleDepartment of Neurorehabilitation Sciences, Casa di Cura Igea, 20144 Milano, Italy.
Evdoxia AristidouDepartment of Neurorehabilitation Sciences, Casa di Cura Igea, 20144 Milano, Italy.
Paola AntoniottiDepartment of Neurorehabilitation Sciences, Casa di Cura Igea, 20144 Milano, Italy.
Massimo CorboDepartment of Neurorehabilitation Sciences, Casa di Cura Igea, 20144 Milano, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-0793-9830

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The Mini-Balance Evaluation Systems Test (Mini-BESTest), a 14-item scale, has high content validity for balance assessment. This study further examines the construct validity of the Mini-BESTest with an emphasis on its measurement invariance. The Mini-BESTest was administered to 292 neurological patients in two sessions (before and after rehabilitation) and evaluated with the Rasch analysis (Many-Facet Rating Scale Model: persons, items, sessions). Categories' order and fit to the model were assessed. Next, maps, dimensionality, and differential item functioning (DIF) were examined for construct validity evaluation. DIF was inspected for several clinically important variables, including session, diagnosis, and assistive devices. Mini-BESTest items had ordered categories and fitted the Rasch model. The item map did not flag severe construct underrepresentation. The dimensionality analysis showed that another variable extraneous to balance affected the score of a few items. However, this multidimensionality had only a modest impact on measures. Session did not cause DIF. DIF for assistive devices affected six items and caused a severe measurement artefact. The measurement artefact caused by DIF for diagnosis was negligible. The Mini-BESTest returns interval measures with robust construct validity and measurement invariance. However, caution should be used when comparing Mini-BESTest measures obtained with and without assistive devices.

Indexed as

Disability EvaluationPostural BalanceHumansPhysical Therapy ModalitiesPsychometricsReproducibility of Resultsbalance assessmentfalls risk assessmentneurological balance impairmentneurological rehabilitationpsychometricsRasch analysis

Identifiers

PMID36982075
PMCPMC10049698

What OpenQuestion holds

Textfull text, public
LicenceCC BY
measurements read36
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.