Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorWeber, Michaela
dc.contributor.authorVan Ancum, Jeanine M.
dc.contributor.authorBergquist, Ronny
dc.contributor.authorTaraldsen, Kristin
dc.contributor.authorGordt, Katharina
dc.contributor.authorMikolaizak, A. Stefanie
dc.contributor.authorNerz, Corinna
dc.contributor.authorPijnappels, Mirjam
dc.contributor.authorJonkman, Nini H.
dc.contributor.authorMaier, Andrea B.
dc.contributor.authorHelbostad, Jorunn L.
dc.contributor.authorVereijken, Beatrix
dc.contributor.authorBecker, Clemens
dc.contributor.authorSchwenk, Michael
dc.identifier.citationBMC Geriatrics. 2018, 18 (1), 1-10.nb_NO
dc.description.abstractBackground With the growing number of young-older adults (baby-boomers), there is an increasing demand for assessment tools specific for this population, which are able to detect subtle balance and mobility deficits. Various balance and mobility tests already exist, but suffer from ceiling effects in higher functioning older adults. A reliable and valid challenging balance and mobility test is critical to determine a young-older adult’s balance and mobility performance and to timely initiate preventive interventions. The aim was to evaluate the concurrent validity, inter- and intrarater reliability, internal consistency, and ceiling effects of a challenging balance and mobility scale, the Community Balance and Mobility Scale (CBM), in young-older adults aged 60 to 70 years. Methods Fifty-one participants aged 66.4 ± 2.7 years (range, 60–70 years) were assessed with the CBM. The Fullerton Advanced Balance scale (FAB), 3-Meter Tandem Walk (3MTW), 8-level balance scale, Timed-Up-and-Go (TUG), and 7-m habitual gait speed were used to estimate concurrent validity, examined by Spearman correlation coefficient (ρ). Inter- and intrarater reliability were calculated as Intra-class-correlations (ICC), and internal consistency by Cronbach alpha and item-total correlations (ρ). Ceiling effects were determined by obtaining the percentage of participants reaching the highest possible score. Results The CBM significantly correlated with the FAB (ρ = 0.75; p < .001), 3MTW errors (ρ = − 0.61; p < .001), 3MTW time (ρ = − 0.35; p = .05), the 8-level balance scale (ρ = 0.35; p < .05), the TUG (ρ = − 0.42; p < .01), and 7-m habitual gait speed (ρ = 0.46, p < .001). Inter- (ICC2,k = 0.97), intrarater reliability (ICC3,k = 1.00) were excellent, and internal consistency (α = 0.88; ρ = 0.28–0.81) was good to satisfactory. The CBM did not show ceiling effects in contrast to other scales. Conclusions Concurrent validity of the CBM was good when compared to the FAB and moderate to good when compared to other measures of balance and mobility. Based on this study, the CBM can be recommended to measure balance and mobility performance in the specific population of young-older adults.nb_NO
dc.publisherBioMed Centralnb_NO
dc.rightsNavngivelse 4.0 Internasjonal*
dc.titleConcurrent validity and reliability of the Community Balance and Mobility Scale in young-older adults.nb_NO
dc.typeJournal articlenb_NO
dc.typePeer reviewednb_NO
dc.source.journalBMC Geriatricsnb_NO
dc.description.localcodeOpen Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.nb_NO
cristin.unitnameInstitutt for nevromedisin og bevegelsesvitenskap

Files in this item


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Navngivelse 4.0 Internasjonal
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as Navngivelse 4.0 Internasjonal