Kornetti et al proposed a revision to the Berg Balance Scale (see previous) based on a rating scale analysis. The authors are from the University of Florida and the Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Gainesville.
Purpose of analysis:
(1) To eliminate underutilized categories.
(2) To develop items that can better separate patients with differing abilities.
Based on the analysis the items in the BBS were rescored as followed:
|
Item from BBS |
4 |
3 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
|
(1) sitting to standing |
4 |
3 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
|
(2) standing unsupported |
3 |
3 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
|
(3) sitting unsupported |
3 |
3 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
|
(4) standing to sitting |
4 |
3 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
|
(5) transfers |
4 |
3 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
|
(6) standing unsupported with eyes closed |
4 |
3 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
|
(7) standing with feet together |
4 |
3 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
|
(8) reaching forward with an outstretched arm |
4 |
3 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
|
(9) retrieving an object (a slipper) from the floor |
4 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
(10) turning to look behind |
4 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
|
(11) turning around 360 degrees |
3 |
3 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
|
(12) placing alternate foot on step of a stool |
3 |
3 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
|
(13) tandem stance (standing with one foot in front of the other) |
4 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
(14) standing on one foot |
4 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
total score for the modified BBS =
= SUM(points for all 14 items)
Interpretation:
• minimum score: 0
• maximum score: 52 (rather than the 56 of the BBS).
The authors found that a patient at low risk of falling did well on both of the following:
(1) tandem stance
(2) at least 2 of the following:
(2a) alternating foot
(2b) standing on 1 foot
(2c) looking behind
Purpose: To evaluate an elderly patient's balance using the modified Berg Balance Scale (mBBS) based on the analysis of Kornetti et al.
Specialty: Sports Medicine & Rehabilitation
Objective: risk factors, disability and performance
ICD-10: ,
