The Reliability and Validity of the Turkish Version of Community Balance and Mobility Scale CB&M-T in Older Adults

Abstract

Purpose: The aim of our study is to evaluate the reliability and validity of the Turkish version of the Community Balance and Mobility Scale CB&M-T on older adults of Turkish population. Methods: The study included 145 older adults. Test-retest reliability, internal consistency was used for reliability. Berg Balance Scale was used to test the concurrent validity of the CB&M-T. The ceiling and floor effect were calculated for content validity. To measure the test-retest reliability, the older adults were assessed again with CB&M-T one week after the first assessment. ROC Receiver Operating Characteristic analysis was performed determine the cut-off scores and the area under the curve AUC was calculated. Results: Very high relationship was found between the 1st and 2nd evaluation total CB&M-T score. Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was excellent. There were no floor and ceiling effects. High correlations were found between CB&M-T and BBS. The optimum cut-off value is calculated as 38.5 points. AUC value of 0.90 is found to be highly acceptable for individuals at fall risk. Conclusion: This study indicates that the Turkish version of the CB&M-T scale is a reliable and valid balance and mobility scale that can be used in the rehabilitation of older adults with a high functional level. According to these results, Turkish clinicians have been brought a new scale that can be used in clinics We think that older adults with high functional levels will bring a new perspective to the literature to evaluate the fall risk, balance and mobility and to plan rehabilitation programs.

Keywords

• Mobility, older adults, postural balance, reliability, validity

References

1. 1. Hirasaki E, Kubo T, Nozawa S, Matano S, Matsunaga T. Analysis of head and body movements of elderly people during locomotion. Acta Otolaryngol 1993;113:25–30. [CrossRef]
2. 2. Tinetti ME, Speechley M, Ginter SF. Risk factors for falls among elderly persons living in the community. N Engl J Med 1988;319:1701–1707. [CrossRef]
3. 3. American Geriatrics Society, Geriatrics Society, American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons Panel on Falls Prevention. Guideline for the prevention of falls in older persons. J Am Geriatr Soc 2001;49:664– 672. [CrossRef]
4. 4. Bogle Thorbahn LD, Newton RA. Use of the Berg Balance Test to predict falls in elderly persons. Phys Ther 1996;76:576–583. [CrossRef]
5. 5. de Morton NA, Berlowitz DJ, Keating JL. A systematic review of mobility instruments and their measurement properties for older acute medical patients. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2008;6:44. [CrossRef]
6. 6. Collen FM, Wade DT, Robb GF, Bradshaw CM. The Rivermead mobility index: a further development of the Rivermead motor assessment. Int Disabil Stud 1991;13:50–54. [CrossRef]
7. 7. Sahin F, Yilmaz F, Ozmaden A, Kotevoglu N, Sahin T, Kuran B. Reliability and validity of the Turkish version of the Berg Balance Scale. J Geriatr Phys Ther 2008;31:32–37. [CrossRef]
8. 8. Podsiadlo D, Richardson S. The timed “Up & Go”: a test of basic functional mobility for frail elderly persons. J Am Geriatr Soc 1991;39:142–148. [CrossRef]

9. 9. Yürük ZÖ, Aytar A, Tüzün EH, Eker L, Yüksel İ, De Morton NA. Acceptability, reliability and validity of the Turkish version of the de morton mobility index in elderly patients with knee osteoarthritis. Turk J Geriatr 2014;17:404–409. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/ b12a/4bf1301efe3df2b01ca1035bfbca87e901ba.pdf
10. 10. Balasubramanian CK. The community balance and mobility scale alleviates the ceiling effects observed in the currently used gait and balance assessments for the community-dwelling older adults. J Geriatr Phys Ther 2015;38:78–89. [CrossRef]
11. 11. Howe J, Inness E, Venturini A, Williams JI, Verrier MC. The Community Balance and Mobility Scale-a balance measure for individuals with traumatic brain injury. Clin Rehabil 2006;20:885–895. [CrossRef]
12. 12. Wright FV, Ryan J, Brewer K. Reliability of the Community Balance and Mobility Scale (CB&M) in high-functioning school-aged children and adolescents who have an acquired brain injury. Brain Injury 2010;24:1585–1594. [CrossRef]
13. 13. Takacs J, Garland SJ, Carpenter MG, Hunt MA. Validity and reliability of the community balance and mobility scale in individuals with knee osteoarthritis. Phys Ther 2014;94:866–874. [CrossRef]
14. 14. Weber M, Van Ancum J, Bergquist R, et al. Measurement Properties of the Community Balance and Mobility Scale in Young-Older Adults. BMC Geriatrics 2018;18:156. [CrossRef]
15. 15. Knorr S, Brouwer B, Garland SJ. Validity of the Community Balance and Mobility Scale in community-dwelling persons after stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2010;91:890–896. [CrossRef]
16. 16. Lee KB, Lee P, Yoo SW, Kim YD. Reliability and validity of the Korean version of the community balance and mobility scale in patients with hemiplegia after stroke. J Phys Ther Sci 2016;28:2307–2310. [CrossRef]
17. 17. Inness EL, Howe JA, Niechwiej-Szwedo E, Jaglal SB, McIlroy WE, Verrier MC. Measuring balance and mobility after traumatic brain injury: validation of the Community Balance and Mobility Scale (CB&M). Physiother Can 2011;63:199–208. [CrossRef]
18. 18. Gordt K, Mikolaizak AS, Nerz C, et al. Community Balance and Mobility Scale --German version. Z Gerontol Geriatr 2018:1–9. [CrossRef]
19. 19. Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, Ferraz MB. Guidelines for the process of cross- cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine 2000;25:3186–3191. [CrossRef]
20. 20. Berg K, Wood-Dauphine S, Williams JI, Gayton D. Measuring balance in the elderly: preliminary development of an instrument. Physiother Can 1989;41:304–311. [CrossRef]
21. 21. Terwee CB, Bot SD, de Boer MR, et al. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J. Clin Epidemiol 2007;60:34–42. [CrossRef]