Psychometric properties of the Mini-Balance Evaluation Systems Test (Mini-BESTest) among multiple populations: a COSMIN systematic review and meta-analysis

Meseguer Henarejos, Ana Belén; López Pina, José Antonio; López-García, Juan José; Martínez-González-Moro, Ignacio

Publication:
Psychometric properties of the Mini-Balance Evaluation Systems Test (Mini-BESTest) among multiple populations: a COSMIN systematic review and meta-analysis

dc.contributor.author	Meseguer Henarejos, Ana Belén
dc.contributor.author	López Pina, José Antonio
dc.contributor.author	López-García, Juan José
dc.contributor.author	Martínez-González-Moro, Ignacio
dc.contributor.department	Fisioterapia
dc.date.accessioned	2025-04-09T11:45:50Z
dc.date.available	2025-04-09T11:45:50Z
dc.date.issued	2025-01-28
dc.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	es
dc.description.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.	es
dc.format	application/pdf	es
dc.format.extent	25	es
dc.identifier.citation	Disability and Rehabilitation, 1–24
dc.identifier.doi	https://doi.org/10.1080/09638288.2025.2456602
dc.identifier.issn	Print: 0963-8288
dc.identifier.issn	Electronic: 1464-5165
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10201/153180
dc.language	eng	es
dc.publisher	Taylor and Francis Group, Taylor and Francis	es
dc.relation	Sin financiación externa a la Universidad	es
dc.relation.publisherversion	https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09638288.2025.2456602	es
dc.rights	info:eu-repo/semantics/embargoedAccess	es
dc.subject	Mini-BeSTest	es
dc.subject	Psychometric properties	es
dc.subject	Reliability	es
dc.subject	Validity	es
dc.subject	Responsiveness	es
dc.subject	COSMiN standards	es
dc.subject	Systematic review	es
dc.title	Psychometric properties of the Mini-Balance Evaluation Systems Test (Mini-BESTest) among multiple populations: a COSMIN systematic review and meta-analysis	es
dc.type	info:eu-repo/semantics/article	es
dspace.entity.type	Publication	es