The aim of this study is to determine which short versions of the Balance Evaluation System Test (BESTest), S-BESTest, Brief-BESTest and Mini-BESTest, are most appropriate for assessing balance impairments in patients with subacute stroke. Participants were patients with subacute stroke: 12 in the reliability assessment and 70 in the validity testing. Patients were assessed using 3 short-form BESTests. All short-form BESTests demonstrated excellent reliability and excellent validity, but the S-BESTest demonstrated better accuracy in identifying patients with subacute stroke who had balance improvement using the cutoff score of 6 points. These findings suggest that the S-BESTest is a shortform BESTest that is appropriate for assessing balance impairments in patients with subacute stroke. Objectives: To examine the reliability, validity and responsiveness of 3 different short versions of the Balance Evaluation Systems Test (BESTest: S-BESTest, Brief-BESTest and Mini-BESTest) in patients with subacute stroke. Design: A prospective cohort study. Participants: Patients with subacute stroke. Methods: Patients were assessed using the full BESTest. Scores of 3 short-form BESTests were later extracted. The intra-rater and inter-rater reliability (n = 12) were gathered from 5 raters. Concurrent validity was assessed with the Berg Balance Scale (BBS). Floor/ceiling effect, internal responsiveness and external responsiveness with the BBS (n = 70) were assessed at baseline, 2 weeks and 4 weeks post-rehabilitation. Results and conclusion: All short-form BESTests demonstrated excellent intra-rater and inter-rater reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) = 0.95-0.99) and excellent concurrent validity (r = 0.93-0.96). Unlike the Brief-BESTest and Mini-BESTest, the S-BESTest and BESTest had no significant floor/ceiling effects (< 20%). The standardized response mean of all 4 BESTest versions were large, ranging between 1.19 and 1.57, indicating sufficient internal responsiveness. The area under the curve of the S-BESTest and BESTest were significantly higher than the Brief-BESTest and Mini-BESTest, reflecting better accuracy of the S-BESTest and BE-STest in identifying patients with subacute stroke who had balance improvement using the minimal clinically important difference of 6 and 16 points, respectively. These findings suggest that the S-BE-STest is a short-form BESTest that is appropriate for assessing balance impairments in patients with subacute stroke.

Background and Purpose: Classification of functional impairment in persons with stroke can influence treatment planning but this information is missing in the Stroke Rehabilitation Assessment of Movement (STREAM) Scale. This study aimed to establish the classification of limb mobility impairments and item difficulty of the STREAM. Methods: Rasch analysis was conducted on the STREAM scores to examine the person and item reliability, the item difficulty, and level of impairments. A total of 240 participants were evaluated using the STREAM, the Fugl-Meyer Stroke Assessment (FM), and the Functional Ambulation Categories (FAC). The concurrent validity of the STREAM extremity (STREAM-E) category with the FM-motor category and the STREAM mobility (STREAM-M) category with the FAC category was analyzed using the Spearman rank-order correlation. Results: Person reliabilities of the STREAM-E and STREAM-M were 0.92 and 0.80, respectively. High-item reliability was observed in both STREAM-E (0.97) and STREAM-M (0.99). The STREAM items “flexes hip and knee in supine” and “rolls onto side” were the easiest items, whereas the “dorsiflexes affected ankle with knee extended” item was the most difficult item. The STREAM-E category demonstrated excellent concurrent validity with the FM-motor category (ρ = 0.83) in classifying individuals with stroke into 5 groups: mild, moderate, moderately severe, severe, and very severe limb impairment. The STREAM-M category showed a moderate correlation with the FAC category (ρ = 0.71) in categorizing persons with stroke into 3 groups: mild, moderate, and severe mobility impairment. Discussion and Conclusions: Findings can be used in the assessment and treatment planning of persons with stroke. Video Abstract available for more insights from the authors (see Video, Supplemental Digital Content 1 available at: http://links.lww.com/JNPT/A373).