Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Test-retest reliability and validity of the Sitting Balance Measure-Korean in individuals with incomplete spinal cord injury

Abstract

Study design

Cross-cultural reliability and validity.

Objectives

To develop and validate the Korean version of the Sitting Balance Measure (SBM-K) in Korean persons with incomplete spinal cord injury (ISCI).

Setting

Tertiary care center.

Methods

Twenty-nine persons with ISCI were evaluated using SBM-K, which was validated using the kappa coefficient and intraclass coefficient (ICC). The correlation between SBM-K individual items and total score was analyzed using Spearman’s correlation, and the internal consistency of test items was measured using Cronbach’s alpha. Additionally, the standard error measurement (SEM) and minimal detectable change (MDC) were measured. For the clinical validity of SBM-K, the correlation of SBM-K with the modified Sitting Balance Scale (mSBS) and the Korean-Spinal Cord Independence Measure-III (KSCIM-III) was determined via Spearman’s correlation. Linear regression was performed to determine whether SBM-K could predict KSCIM-III.

Results

The weighted kappa score of the SBM-K individual items and ICC of SBM-K total score were 0.76–0.83 (good–very good) and 0.98 (0.95–0.99), respectively. The correlation between the SBM-K total score and individual items was notable (r = 0.78–0.98). Cronbach’s alpha, SEM, and MDC of SBM-K were 0.98, 0.59, and 1.64, respectively. The clinical validity of SBM-K correlated with mSBS (r = 0.88) and KSCIM-III (r = 0.65–0.89). SBM-K accounted for 17–72% of the variance in predicting KSCIM-III.

Conclusions

SBM-K showed sufficient test-retest reliability, validity, and marginal measurement errors. SBM-K can serve as an optimal clinical assessment tool for Korean ISCI patients and may provide clinicians with reliable sitting balance assessment in Korean clinical settings.

This is a preview of subscription content

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: Bland–Altman plot for the differences between measurements from the two test sessions against the mean of the two test sessions for each subject.

References

  1. 1.

    Lee BB, Cripps RA, Fitzharris M, Wing PC. The global map for traumatic spinal cord injury epidemiology: update 2011, global incidence rate. Spinal Cord. 2014;52:110–6. https://doi.org/10.1038/sc.2012.158.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Reft J, Hasan Z. Trajectories of target reaching arm movements in individuals with spinal cord injury: effect of external trunk support. Spinal Cord. 2002;40:186–91. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.sc.3101277.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Chen CL, Yeung KT, Bih LI, Wang CH, Chen MI, Chien JC. The relationship between sitting stability and functional performance in patients with paraplegia. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2003;84:1276–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0003-9993(03)00200-4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Jørgensen V, Elfving B, Opheim A. Assessment of unsupported sitting in patients with spinal cord injury. Spinal Cord. 2011;49:838–43. https://doi.org/10.1038/sc.2011.9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Wadhwa G, Aikat R. Development, validity and reliability of the Sitting Balance Measure (SBM) in spinal cord injury. Spinal Cord. 2016;54:319–23. https://doi.org/10.1038/sc.2015.148.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Quinzaños J, Villa AR, Flores AA, Pérez R. Proposal and validation of a clinical trunk control test in individuals with spinal cord injury. Spinal Cord. 2014;52:449–54. https://doi.org/10.1038/sc.2014.34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Berg KO, Maki BE, Williams JI, Holliday PJ, Wood-Dauphinee SL. Clinical and laboratory measures of postural balance in an elderly population. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1992;73:1073–80.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Tinetti ME. Performance-oriented assessment of mobility problems in elderly patients. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1986;34:119–26. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-5415.1986.tb05480.x.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Arora T, Oates A, Lynd K, Musselman KE. Current state of balance assessment during transferring, sitting, standing and walking activities for the spinal cord injured population: a systematic review. J Spinal Cord Med. 2020;43:10–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/10790268.2018.1481692.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    American Spinal Injury Association. International standards for neurological classification of spinal cord injury. Chicago, IL: American Spinal Injury Association; 2003.

  11. 11.

    Wong SS, Yam MS, Ng SS. The Figure-of-Eight Walk Test: reliability and associations with stroke-specific impairments. Disabil Rehabil. 2013;35:1896–902. https://doi.org/10.3109/09638288.2013.766274.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Curtin F, Schulz P. Multiple correlations and Bonferroni’s correction. Biol Psychiatry. 1998;44:775–7.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Liaw LJ, Hsieh CL, Hsu MJ, Chen HM, Lin JH, Lo SK. Test-retest reproducibility of two short-form balance measures used in individuals with stroke. Int J Rehabil Res. 2012;35:256–62. https://doi.org/10.1097/MRR.0b013e3283544d20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Chen HM, Hsieh CL, Sing Kai Lo S, Liaw LJ, Chen SM, Lin JH. The test-retest reliability of 2 mobility performance tests in patients with chronic stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2007;21:347–52. https://doi.org/10.1177/1545968306297864.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Park KY, Chung YJ, Kim JH. The reliability and validity of the spinal cord independence measure (SCIM) III. J Korean Soc Occup Ther. 2009;17:97–109.

    Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Catz A, Itzkovich M, Agranov E, Ring H, Tamir A. SCIM—spinal cord independence measure: a new disability scale for patients with spinal cord lesions. Spinal Cord. 1997;35:850–6. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.sc.3100504.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Wannapakhe J, Saensook W, Keawjoho C, Amatachaya S. Reliability and discriminative ability of the spinal cord independence measure III (Thai version). Spinal Cord. 2016;54:213–20. https://doi.org/10.1038/sc.2015.114.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Brennan P, Silman A. Statistical methods for assessing observer variability in clinical measures. BMJ 1992;304:1491–4. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.304.6840.1491.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Lu WS, Wang CH, Lin JH, Sheu CF, Hsieh CL. The minimal detectable change of the simplified stroke rehabilitation assessment of movement measure. J Rehabil Med. 2008;40:615–9. https://doi.org/10.2340/16501977-0230.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Altman DG, Bland JM. Measurement in medicine: the analysis of method comparison studies. Statistician. 1983;32:307–17. https://doi.org/10.2307/2987937.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Portney LG, Watkins MP. Foundations of Clinical Research: Applications to Practice. Appleton & Lange: Norwalk, Connecticut; 1993, pp 2–450.

  22. 22.

    Godi M, Franchignoni F, Caligari M, Giordano A, Turcato AM, Nardone A. Comparison of reliability, validity, and responsiveness of the mini-BESTest and Berg Balance Scale in patients with balance disorders. Phys Ther. 2013;93:158–67. https://doi.org/10.2522/ptj.20120171.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Lynch SM, Leahy P, Barker SP. Reliability of measurements obtained with a modified functional reach test in subjects with spinal cord injury. Phys Ther. 1998;78:128–33. https://doi.org/10.1093/ptj/78.2.128.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Patten C, Kothari D, Whitney J, Lexell J, Lum PS. Reliability and responsiveness of elbow trajectory tracking in chronic poststroke hemiparesis. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2003;40:487–500. https://doi.org/10.1682/jrrd.2003.11.0487.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Goldsmith CH, Boers M, Bombardier C, Tugwell P. Criteria for clinically important changes in outcomes: development, scoring and evaluation of rheumatoid arthritis patient and trial profiles. OMERACT Committee. J Rheumatol. 1993;20:561–5.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Flansbjer UB, Blom J, Brogårdh C. The reproducibility of berg balance scale and the single-leg stance in chronic stroke and the relationship between the two tests. PM R J Inj Funct Rehabil. 2012;4:165–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmrj.2011.11.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Schuck P, Zwingmann C. The ‘smallest real difference’ as a measure of sensitivity to change: a critical analysis. Int J Rehabil Res. 2003;26:85–91. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004356-200306000-00002.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Further reading

  1. Beckerman H, Roebroeck ME, Lankhorst GJ, Becher JG, Bezemer PD, Verbeek AL. Smallest real difference, a link between reproducibility and responsiveness. Qual Life Res. 2001;10:571–8. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1013138911638

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Roebroeck ME, Harlaar J, Lankhorst GJ. The application of generalizability theory to reliability assessment: an illustration using isometric force measurements. Phys Ther 1993;73:386–95. https://doi.org/10.1093/ptj/73.6.386. discussion 396

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Schreuders TA, Roebroeck ME, Goumans J, van Nieuwenhuijzen JF, Stijnen TH, Stam HJ. Measurement error in grip and pinch force measurements in patients with hand injuries. Phys Ther 2003;83:806–15. https://doi.org/10.1093/ptj/83.9.806

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Editorial Support, in terms of English language editing, proofreading, and formatting, was provided by Editage.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

JL: conceptualization, writing—original draft, validation, investigation. SA: formal analysis, software. OK: resources. GK: writing—review and editing. MK: supervision.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to GyuMin Kang or Myungki Kim.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Ethics statement

The study was approved by the National Rehabilitation Hospital Institutional Review Board (IRB File No. NRC-2019-05-032). All participants received explanations of the study protocol, and written informed consent was obtained.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lee, J., An, S., Kim, O. et al. Test-retest reliability and validity of the Sitting Balance Measure-Korean in individuals with incomplete spinal cord injury. Spinal Cord (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41393-021-00715-4

Download citation

Search

Quick links