Short Form Berg Balance Scale 3 Point
  1. Rehabilitation Measures Database
  2. Short Form Berg Balance Scale 3 Point

Short Form Berg Balance Scale 3 Point

Last Updated

Purpose

The Berg Balance Scale- Short Form is a performance-based measure of balance during specific movement tasks. The purpose of Short Form Berg Balance Scale is to assess the static and dynamic balance and fall risk in adult and geriatric populations. For the full version, click here.

Link to Instrument

Acronym SF BBS-3P

Area of Assessment

Balance – Non-vestibular
Functional Mobility

Cost

Free

Cost Description

Cost of the equipment

Diagnosis/Conditions

  • Pain Management
  • Stroke Recovery
  • Vestibular Disorders

Populations

Stroke
Orthopedic Surgery
Older Adults and Geriatric Care
Mixed Populations

Key Descriptions

  • 7-item scale measures static and dynamic balance during specific movement tasks.
  • Each item has a 3-point score, ranging from 0-4 (0, 2, & 4 from the original BBS).
  • Each item is scored depending on the ability to perform the specific task and the score on each item is summed.
  • Minimum score = 0 (poor balance)
  • Maximum score = 28 (good balance)

Number of Items

7

Equipment Required

  • Stopwatch or watch with second hand
  • Chair of reasonable height with arm rests
  • Measuring tape/ruler/any indicator of 2, 5 and 10 inches

Time to Administer

10 minutes

(half the time needed to administer the original BBS)

Required Training

No Training

Instrument Reviewers

Initially reviewed by Rati Iyer PT, MPT in 10/2012.

ICF Domain

Activity

Considerations

  • The SF BBS was quicker to use in a busy clinical environment than the original BBS 
  • BBS seemed to provide more accurate balance assessment than the SF BBS in patient population that received intervention. 
  • The SF BBS scores have not been interpreted and cut-off scores have not been set for different patient populations 

Do you see an error or have a suggestion for this instrument summary? Please e-mail us!

Stroke

back to Populations

Standard Error of Measurement (SEM)

Acute Stroke: (Chou, 2006; n=113; medically stable 14 days post stroke; mean age=68.1 (11.3) years)

  • SEM for the entire group(n=113): 4.2 

 

Chronic Stroke: (Liaw et al, 2012; n=52; mean (SD)age=60.4 years(13.4); median time post stroke =24 months)

  • SEM for entire group (n=52) was calculated by the square root of error variance: 1.02

Minimal Detectable Change (MDC)

Acute Stroke: (Chou et al, 2006)

  • The calculation used is: MDC = 1.96 x SEM (4.2) x square root of 2: MDC=11.641 points 

 

Chronic Stroke: (Liaw et al, 2012; n=52; MDC was calculated based on SEM)

  • MDC individual: 2.83 points
  • MDC group (n=52): 0.39 points

Normative Data

Acute Stroke: (Chou et al, 2006)

  • Mean (SD) SFBBS-3P score: 22.1(22) 

 

Chronic Stroke: (Liaw et al, 2012)

  • Mean (SD) SF BBS 3P session 1: 17.46(9.11)

Test/Retest Reliability

Acute Stroke: (Chou et al, 2006) 

  • Excellent test-retest reliability (ICC=.99) 

 

Chronic Stroke: (Liaw et al, 2012)

  • Excellent test-retest reliability (ICC=. 99)

Internal Consistency

Acute Stroke: (Chou et al, 2006)

  • Excellent internal consistency 14 days post stroke (Cronbach’s α=.96)

Criterion Validity (Predictive/Concurrent)

Predictive Validity: 

Acute Stroke: (Chou et al, 2006)

  • Excellent predictive validity (n=81) at 14 days post stroke predicting Barthel Index (BI)scores at 90 days post stroke (r=.60) 

 

Concurrent Validity: 

Acute Stroke: (Chou et al, 2006)

  • Excellent concurrent validity (n=113)of the SF BBS -3P at 14 days post stroke validating original BBS at 14 days post stroke (r=0.99)

Construct Validity

Convergent Validity:  

Acute Stroke: (Chou et al, 2006)

  • Excellent convergent validity of the SF BBS at 14 days post stroke validating Barthel Index (r=.86) 
  • Excellent convergent validity of the SF BBS at 14 days post stroke validating Fugl-Meyer Motor test (FM) (r=.68)

Content Validity

Acute Stroke: (Chou et al, 2006)

  • The authors selected items from the original BBS featuring the highest internal consistency and greatest responsiveness. 
  • Data retrieved for this study were randomly divided into 2 groups: calibration group (n=113) for developing the SF BBS and validation group (n=113) for comparing the psychometric properties of the SF BBS with those of the original BBS. 
  • To develop the SF BBS, the best items were determined by selecting the items with the lowest values from an overall item index of each item. 
  • The overall item index of each item is the product of the 2 rank orders (the rank order of the corrected item total correlation for an item and the rank order of the effect size of an item). 
  • The rank of the effect size is useful in removing test items that show little sensitivity to change.
  • Lower values for the overall item index indicated better items.

Floor/Ceiling Effects

Acute Stroke: (Chou et al, 2006)

  • Poor floor effect: 41.6%

Responsiveness

Acute Stroke: (Chou et al, 2006)

  • Large responsiveness (n=81) with ES=0.80

Orthopedic Surgery

back to Populations

Standard Error of Measurement (SEM)

Hip/Knee Arthroplasty: (Jogi et al, 2010; n=54 combination of hip (n=26) and knee(n=28) arthroplasty, evaluated before and after 5-7weeks home exercise program using the original BBS and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC). Scores for reduced versions of the BBS and WOMAC were extracted from the original version)

  • SEM for entire group(n=54) was calculated using : Standard Deviation from the 1st test x (square root of (1-ICC)): 1.414

Minimal Detectable Change (MDC)

Hip/Knee Arthroplasty: (Jogi et al, 2010)

  • The calculation used is: MDC = 1.96 x SEM (1.414) x square root of 2: MDC= 3.92 points

Normative Data

Hip/Knee Arthroplasty: (Jogi et al, 2010)

  • Mean (SD) SFBBS 3P score 1st occasion: 16(5)

Criterion Validity (Predictive/Concurrent)

Concurrent Validity:

Hip/Knee Arthroplasty: (Jogi et al,2010)

  • Excellent concurrent validity (n=54) of the SF BBS(3P) at 1 week and 5-7 weeks validating original BBS at 1 week and 5-7 weeks post home exercise program (r=0.92, 0.97 respectively).

Responsiveness

Hip/Knee Arthroplasty: (Jogi et al,2010)

  • Small responsiveness (n=54) calculated using Standardized Response Mean (SRM): BBS(1.9) and SF BBS (1.8)

Older Adults and Geriatric Care

back to Populations

Standard Error of Measurement (SEM)

Elderly Population: (Karthikeyan et al, 2012; n=76; mean age=74.96(6.45) years)

  • SEM for the entire group (n=76) was calculated using : Standard Deviation from the 1st test x (square root of (1-ICC)): 0.899

Minimal Detectable Change (MDC)

Elderly Population: (Karthikeyan et al, 2012)

  • The calculation used is: MDC = 1.96 x SEM (0.899) x square root of 2: MDC= 2.492 points

Normative Data

Elderly population: (Karthikeyan et al, 2012)

  • Mean (SD) SFBBS 3P score 1st occasion: 20.605(4.079)

Test/Retest Reliability

Elderly Population: (Karthikeyan et al, 2012)

  • Excellent test-retest reliability (ICC=.9514)

Mixed Populations

back to Populations

Normative Data

Older Adults with balance, dizziness and chronic neck pain: (Hawk et al, 2009)

  • Mean (SD) SF BBS 3P at baseline: 22.1(2.3)
  • Mean (SD) SF BBS 3P after 1 month: 22.3(2.1) 
  • Mean (SD) SF BBS 3P after 2 months: 22.7(2.0)

Responsiveness

Older Adults with balance, dizziness and chronic neck pain: (Hawk et al, 2009)

  • Small responsiveness (n=14) between baseline and one month of SFBBS-3P score with ES=0.06 
  • Moderate responsiveness (n=14) between baseline and 2 months of SFBBS-3P score with ES=0.25 

 

Adult group with balance, dizziness and chronic neck pain: (Strunk et al, 2009)

  • Large responsiveness (n=15) between baseline and 8 weeks of SF BBS-3P score with ES=1.2

Bibliography

Chou, C. Y., Chien, C. W., et al. (2006). "Developing a short form of the Berg Balance Scale for people with stroke." Phys Ther 86(2): 195-204. 

Hawk, C. and Cambron, J. (2009). "Chiropractic care for older adults: effects on balance, dizziness, and chronic pain." J Manipulative Physiol Ther 32(6): 431-437. 

Jogi, P., Spaulding, S. J., et al. (2011). "Comparison of the Original and Reduced Versions of the Berg Balance Scale and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index in Patients Following Hip or Knee Arthroplasty." Physiother Can 63(1): 107-114. 

Karthikeyan, G., Sheikh, S. G., et al. (2012). "Test-retest reliability of short form of berg balance scale in elderly people." Glo Adv Res J Med Med Sci 1: 139–144.

Liaw, L. J., Hsieh, C. L., et al. (2012). "Test–retest reproducibility of two short-form balance measures used in individuals with stroke." International Journal of Rehabilitation 嫩B研究院 35(3): 256-262.

Oliveira Bezerra de Figueiredo, K. M., Costa Lima, K., et al. (2008). "Instruments for the assessment of physical balance in the elderly." Brazilian Journal of Kinanthropometry and Human Performance 9(4): 408-413. 

Strunk, R. G. and Hawk, C. (2009). "Effects of chiropractic care on dizziness, neck pain, and balance: a single-group, preexperimental, feasibility study." J Chiropr Med 8(4): 156-164. 

rehabilitation measures

More Instruments Like This

We have reviewed more than 500 instruments for use with a number of diagnoses including stroke, spinal cord injury and traumatic brain injury among several others.

updated Oct 15, 2024

Buss-Durkee Hostility Inve...

read more

updated Aug 28, 2024

NIH Toolbox for Assessment...

read more

updated Jul 31, 2024

PROMIS – Ability to Partic...

read more