Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2025 Apr 3;20(4):e0318302.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0318302. eCollection 2025.

The balance evaluation systems test (BESTest), mini-BESTest and brief-BESTest as clinical tools to assess balance control across different populations: A reliability generalization meta-analysis

Ana-Belén Meseguer-Henarejos  1 , Juan-José López-García  2 , José-Antonio López-Pina  2 , Ignacio Martínez-González-Moro  1 , Ángel Martínez-Carrasco  1
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

The balance evaluation systems test (BESTest), mini-BESTest and brief-BESTest as clinical tools to assess balance control across different populations: A reliability generalization meta-analysis

Ana-Belén Meseguer-Henarejos et al. PLoS One. .

Abstract

Background: The Balance Evaluation Systems Test (BESTest) and two abbreviated versions, Mini-BESTest and Brief-BESTest are used to assess functioning of balance control systems. Its reliability across different populations remains to be determined.

Objective: The present study followed reliability generalization procedures to estimate an average internal consistency and inter and intra-rater reliability for the BESTest, Mini-BESTest and Brief-BEStest. In this study, the heterogeneity of reliability coefficients in each instrument is evaluated. If heterogeneity is significant, a moderator analysis is performed to identify the characteristic which explains such variability.

Methods: A search of the PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Scopus and CINAHL databases was carried out to February 10th 2024. Two reviewers independently selected empirical studies published in English or Spanish that applied the BESTest, Mini-BESTest and/or Brief-BESTest and reported any reliability coefficient and/or internal consistency with data at hand.

Results: Sixty-four studies reported any reliability estimate BESTest, Mini-BESTest and/or Brief-BESTest scores (N. = 5225 participants). Mean Cronbach alpha for the Mini-BESTest and Brief-BESTest (total score = 0.92) indicating no variability in estimated internal consistency. Likewise, no variability was obtained for inter-rater and intra-rater mean agreement of the BESTest (ICC = 0.97; 0.94), Mini-BESTest (ICC = 0.95; 0.94) and Brief-BESTest (ICC = 0.96; 0.95). Mean scores, standard deviation of scores, mean age, gender, population type, mean history of the disorder, disease, raters´ experience, number of raters, rater formation, continent of study and design type presented statistically significant relationships with ICC and/or Cronbach´s alpha for BESTest and the two abbreviated versions.

Conclusions: The mean intraclass correlations and Cronbach alpha obtained for BESTest, Mini-BESTest and Brief-BESTest exhibited an excellent inter and intra-rater reliability and internal consistency. The average reliability obtained three scales adequate to be applied for screening balance problems in different populations. Some continuous and categorical moderator variables increase reliability and internal consistency of these scales.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Fig 1
Fig 1. PRISMA flow diagram.
Fig 2
Fig 2. Forest plot BESTest ICC inter-rater agreement.
Fig 3
Fig 3. Forest plot BESTest ICC intra-rater agreement.
Fig 4
Fig 4. Forest plot Mini-BESTest Cronbach´s alpha.
Fig 5
Fig 5. Forest plot Mini-BESTest inter-rater agreement.
Fig 6
Fig 6. Forest plot Mini-BESTest intra-rater agreement.
Fig 7
Fig 7. Forest plot Brief-BESTest Cronbach´s alpha.
Fig 8
Fig 8. Forest plot Brief-BESTest inter-rater agreement.
Fig 9
Fig 9. Forest plot Brief-BESTest intra-rater agreement.
Fig 10
Fig 10. Funnel plot BESTest ICC inter-rater agreement.
Fig 11
Fig 11. Funnel plot BESTest ICC intra-rater agreement.
Fig 12
Fig 12. Funnel plot Mini-BESTest Cronbach´s alpha.
Fig 13
Fig 13. Funnel plot Mini-BESTest inter-rater agreement.
Fig 14
Fig 14. Funnel plot Mini-BESTest intra-rater agreement.
Fig 15
Fig 15. Funnel plot Brief-BESTest Cronbach´s alpha.
Fig 16
Fig 16. Funnel plot Brief-BESTest inter-rater agreement.
Fig 17
Fig 17. Funnel plot Brief-BESTest intra-rater agreement.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Horak FB, Wrisley DM, Frank J. The balance evaluation systems test (BESTest) to differentiate balance deficits. Phys Ther. 2009;89(5):484–98. doi: 10.2522/ptj.20080071 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Horak FB, Shupert CL, Mirka A. Components of postural dyscontrol in the elderly: a review. Neurobiol Aging. 1989;10(6):727–38. doi: 10.1016/0197-4580(89)90010-9 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Woollacott MH, Shumway-Cook A. Attention and the control of posture and gait: a review of an emerging area of research. Gait & Posture. 2002;16(1):1–14. 10.1016/s0966-6362(01)00156-4 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Nutt J, Horak FB. Gait and balance disorders. In: Asbury AK, McKhann GM, McDonald WI, et al.. eds. Diseases of the nervous system: clinical neuroscience and therapeutic principles. 3rd ed. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press; 2002:581–591.
    1. Bernstein NA. The co-ordination and regulation of movements. Oxford, NY: Pergamon Press; 1967.

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources