Introduction
Postural control is important in activities of daily living [
1]. It involves the ability to control the position of the body for stability and orientation [
2]. Postural stability, commonly referred to as balance, is the ability to control the center of mass in relation to the base of support [
2]. Maintaining a task-specific relationship between body segments and between the body and the environment is defined as postural orientation [
2]. Postural control forms the foundation for all movements against gravity, for selective movements and for functional tasks [
3]. It depends on different subsystems, which have to cooperate with each other [
2]. Impaired postural control has been associated with poorer functions in activities of everyday life, reduced ambulatory capacity, an increased risk of falling, limited social participation and it is one of the most common disabilities after stroke [
1,
3]. Stroke is the second leading cause of death worldwide [
4]. More than 80% of people who had first-time strokes, showed balance impairments resulting in limited sitting balance, standing balance or stepping balance [
1,
3]. Hence, it is necessary to gain a clearer understanding of balance dysfunctions after stroke, in order to specify intervention programs.
In order to assess postural control, a standardized measurement instrument (MI) is important [
5,
6]. MIs provide quantifiable and objective data to support clinical reasoning and are a crucial part of evidence-based practice [
5,
7]. Many different MIs are used to assess impaired postural control, but there is a lack of a clinically useful reference standard [
6]. The most commonly used MIs in German speaking countries are the Berg Balance Scale (BBS) [
8,
9], the Timed “Up & Go” (TUG) [
10,
11], the Functional Reach Test [
12], the One Leg Standing Test [
12] and the Dynamic Gait Index [
13]. However, few MIs consider the different aspects underlying postural control. For instance, the BBS lacks important aspects of dynamic balance function, for example gait items or the ability to react to postural perturbations [
14]. The TUG or the One Leg Standing Test, being single-task MIs, can only be used as descriptive tools [
6,
11]. Moreover, the BBS, the Functional Reach Test and the One Leg Standing Test demonstrate significant floor and ceiling effects in measuring postural control in individuals after stroke [
6,
9,
13].
Addressing the majority of these problems, the Balance Evaluation Systems Test (BESTest) has been developed [
15]. The time-consuming administration of the BESTest (35 min) is a key barrier for clinical utility [
14]. With Rasch and factorial analyses a shorter version of the BESTest has been developed, called Mini-BESTest [
14]. This shorter version still encompasses almost all underlying components of postural control. It has already been tested in many different populations and shows robust psychometric properties [
16]. The criterion validity has been primarily analysed with correlations between the Mini-BESTest and different other balance measures. The Mini-BESTest and the BBS demonstrated good to excellent correlations (Pearson’s r between 0.79–0.94 and Spearman’s p between 0.83–0.85) [
16] and further studies revealed strong positive evidence for internal consistency (Cronbach’s α ranging from 0.89–0.96) [
16]. So far, there is no study, reporting ceiling or floor effects of the Mini-BESTest [
16]. With regard to these properties, the Mini-BESTest represents a reliable, valid and responsive MI. It has gained acceptance in clinical practice and research and has been translated and cross-culturally adapted into various languages [
16].
To our knowledge, there is no German version of the Mini-BESTest (GVMBT) available, which has been formally translated. Accordingly, the objective of this study was to translate and cross-culturally adapt the Mini-BESTest into the German language following established guidelines of Beaton, Bombardier, Guillemien & Ferra [
17] and to validate the GVMBT with individuals after stroke. We hypothesized that (1) the BBS and the TUG measure some aspects of postural control [
16] and therefore, these MIs would reveal moderate to high correlations with the GVMBT. Moreover, (2) the GVMBT would measure postural control more precisely and accurately compared to the other used MIs due to high correlations and good agreement in the Bland Altman plots. Furthermore, it would show neither floor nor ceiling effects [
16].
Conclusion
In conclusion, the instructions and scoring descriptions of the GVMBT are equivalent to those of the original version. The GVMBT has excellent validity and internal consistency, which is in accordance to previous studies investigating these properties of the Mini-BESTest in various populations and other languages. Considering these studies, our findings and the four specific subcategories of the Mini-BESTest, the GVMBT can be recommended for the use in clinical practice and research. Due to the score distribution within the BBS and the Mini-BESTest and the difficulty of the items, the GVMBT might be more appropriate for less impaired individuals. Since the Mini-BESTest contains four different subcategories reflecting almost all aspects of postural control and its short application time, the GVMBT is informative and conveniently for clinical practice. Further studies should focus on other psychometric properties of the GVMBT in larger populations with different functional limitations. Additionally, average values of the GVMBT could serve as an orientation regarding the necessity of walking aids and should be further analyzed.
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.