Publication: Psychometric properties of the Mini-Balance Evaluation Systems Test (Mini-BESTest) among multiple populations: a COSMIN systematic review and meta-analysis
Authors
Meseguer Henarejos, Ana Belén ; López Pina, José Antonio ; López-García, Juan José ; Martínez-González-Moro, Ignacio
item.page.secondaryauthor
item.page.director
Publisher
Taylor and Francis Group, Taylor and Francis
publication.page.editor
publication.page.department
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1080/09638288.2025.2456602
item.page.type
info:eu-repo/semantics/article
Description
© 2025 informa UK limited, trading as taylor & Francis Group. This document is the Published version of a Published Work that appeared in final form in Disability and Rehabilitation. To access the final edited and published work see https://doi.org/10.1080/09638288.2025.2456602
Abstract
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.
publication.page.subject
Citation
Disability and Rehabilitation, 1–24
item.page.embargo
Collections
Ir a Estadísticas
Sin licencia Creative Commons.