Repository logo
  • English
  • Čeština
  • Deutsch
  • Español
  • Français
  • Gàidhlig
  • Latviešu
  • Magyar
  • Nederlands
  • Português
  • Português do Brasil
  • Suomi
  • Svenska
  • Türkçe
  • Қазақ
  • বাংলা
  • हिंदी
  • Ελληνικά
  • Log In
    or
    New user? Click here to register.
Repository logo

Repositorio Institucional de la Universidad de Murcia

Repository logoRepository logo
  • Communities & Collections
  • All of DSpace
  • menu.section.collectors
  • menu.section.acerca
  • English
  • Čeština
  • Deutsch
  • Español
  • Français
  • Gàidhlig
  • Latviešu
  • Magyar
  • Nederlands
  • Português
  • Português do Brasil
  • Suomi
  • Svenska
  • Türkçe
  • Қазақ
  • বাংলা
  • हिंदी
  • Ελληνικά
  • Log In
    or
    New user? Click here to register.
  1. Home
  2. Browse by Subject

Browsing by Subject "COSMiN standards"

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Results Per Page
Sort Options
  • Loading...
    Thumbnail Image
    Publication
    Embargo
    Psychometric properties of the Mini-Balance Evaluation Systems Test (Mini-BESTest) among multiple populations: a COSMIN systematic review and meta-analysis
    (Taylor and Francis Group, Taylor and Francis, 2025-01-28) Meseguer Henarejos, Ana Belén; López Pina, José Antonio; López-García, Juan José; Martínez-González-Moro, Ignacio; Fisioterapia
    Purpose: To synthesize evidence regarding psychometric properties of the Mini-Balance evaluation Systems Test (Mini-BeSTest) in assessing postural control. Method: Six databases were searched until October 15th, 2024. Two authors independently assessed the methodological quality and results of studies using the COSMiN checklist and Terweés criteria. The overall quality of the evidence was provided using the modified GRADe approach. Results: Ninety-one studies were included. The Mini-BeSTest showed very good quality and sufficient structural validity (CFi: 0.91–0.99; TLi: 0.888–0.97; RMSeA: 0.05–0.45), internal consistency (α: 0.73–0.97), criterion validity (BeSTest r: 0.65–0.95), convergent validity (e.g., Brief-BeSTest r: 0.85–0.94; rs: 0.73–0.92; Berg Balance scale r: 0.58–0.85) and know-groups validity (AUC: 0.712–0.97; cutoffs: 9.0–22/28). However, the scale showed doubtful quality as well as sufficient and indeterminate reliability (inter-rater iCC: 0.56–0.998; r: 0.98; intra-rater iCC: 0.74–0.964) and measurement error (SeM: 0.45–3.03; MDC95: 1.23–8.40), respectively. Adequate quality and sufficient rating were found in most studies for responsiveness. The quality of evidence was moderate to low for structural validity and criterion validity, high to low for internal consistency, convergent validity, and high to very low for reliability, measurement error, know-groups validity, and responsiveness. Conclusions: Moderate to high quality evidence was found for support structural validity, internal consistency, reliability, measurement error, criterion validity, hypothesis testing, and responsiveness of the Mini-BeSTest only in some study populations.

DSpace software copyright © 2002-2026 LYRASIS

  • Cookie settings
  • Accessibility
  • Send Feedback