Por favor, use este identificador para citar o enlazar este ítem: https://doi.org/10.1080/09638288.2025.2456602

Registro completo de metadatos
Campo DCValorLengua/Idioma
dc.contributor.authorMeseguer Henarejos, Ana Belén-
dc.contributor.authorLópez Pina, José Antonio-
dc.contributor.authorLópez-García, Juan José-
dc.contributor.authorMartínez-González-Moro, Ignacio-
dc.date.accessioned2025-04-09T11:45:50Z-
dc.date.available2025-04-09T11:45:50Z-
dc.date.issued2025-01-28-
dc.identifier.citationDisability and Rehabilitation, 1–24es
dc.identifier.issnPrint: 0963-8288-
dc.identifier.issnElectronic: 1464-5165-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10201/153180-
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/10.1080/09638288.2025.2456602es
dc.description.abstractPurpose: 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.formatapplication/pdfes
dc.format.extent25es
dc.languageenges
dc.publisherTaylor and Francis Group, Taylor and Francises
dc.relationSin financiación externa a la Universidades
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/embargoedAccesses
dc.subjectMini-BeSTestes
dc.subjectPsychometric propertieses
dc.subjectReliabilityes
dc.subjectValidityes
dc.subjectResponsivenesses
dc.subjectCOSMiN standardses
dc.subjectSystematic reviewes
dc.titlePsychometric properties of the Mini-Balance Evaluation Systems Test (Mini-BESTest) among multiple populations: a COSMIN systematic review and meta-analysises
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/articlees
dc.relation.publisherversionhttps://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09638288.2025.2456602es
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.1080/09638288.2025.2456602-
dc.contributor.departmentDepartamento de Fisioterapia-
Aparece en las colecciones:Artículos

Ficheros en este ítem:
Fichero Descripción TamañoFormato 
Pyschometric properties of the Mini-BESTest-COSMIN.pdf4,86 MBAdobe PDFVista previa
Visualizar/Abrir    Solicitar una copia


Los ítems de Digitum están protegidos por copyright, con todos los derechos reservados, a menos que se indique lo contrario.