The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Berg Balance Scale has high intra- and inter-rater reliability but absolute reliability varies across the scale: a systematic review
Open accessAbstract
QUESTIONS: What is the intra-rater and inter-rater relative reliability of the Berg Balance Scale? What is the absolute reliability of the Berg Balance Scale? Does the absolute reliability of the Berg Balance Scale vary across the scale? DESIGN: Systematic review with meta-analysis of reliability studies. PARTICIPANTS: Any clinical population that has undergone assessment with the Berg Balance Scale. OUTCOME MEASURES: Relative intra-rater reliability, relative inter-rater reliability, and absolute reliability. RESULTS: Eleven studies involving 668 participants were included in the review. The relative intrarater reliability of the Berg Balance Scale was high, with a pooled estimate of 0.98 (95% CI 0.97 to 0.99). Relative inter-rater reliability was also high, with a pooled estimate of 0.97 (95% CI 0.96 to 0.98). A ceiling effect of the Berg Balance Scale was evident for some participants. In the analysis of absolute reliability, all of the relevant studies had an average score of 20 or above on the 0 to 56 point Berg Balance Scale. The absolute reliability across this part of the scale, as measured by the minimal detectable change with 95% confidence, varied between 2.8 points and 6.6 points. The Berg Balance Scale has a higher absolute reliability when close to 56 points due to the ceiling effect. We identified no data that estimated the absolute reliability of the Berg Balance Scale among participants with a mean score below 20 out of 56. CONCLUSION: The Berg Balance Scale has acceptable reliability, although it might not detect modest, clinically important changes in balance in individual subjects. The review was only able to comment on the absolute reliability of the Berg Balance Scale among people with moderately poor to normal balance.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
STATISTICAL METHODS FOR ASSESSING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO METHODS OF CLINICAL MEASUREMENT
Martin Bland, J., & Altman, D. (1986) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(86)90837-8 · Cited by 47,965
Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability.
Shrout, P. E., & Fleiss, J. L. (1979) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.86.2.420 · Cited by 24,532
Cited by
Krohn, M., Rintala, A., Immonen, J., & Sjögren, T. (2024) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/59136 · Cited by 17
Metadata
- Authors
- Downs, S., Marquez, J., & Chiarelli, P.
- Venue
- Journal of Physiotherapy
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2013-06
- Volume
- 59
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 93-99
- ISSN
- 1836-9553 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1980704650
- Cited by
- 291
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 2.45
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.