Test-Retest: ICC=0.91 (general elderly) and 0.99 (stroke survivors)(Berg et al., 1995); ICC=0.88 (elderly) (Bogle Thorbahn & Newton, 1996); ICC=0.98 (stroke) (Liston & Brouwer, 1996).

Interobserver Reliability: ICC’s=0.92 (general elderly) and 0.98 (stroke) (Berg et al., 1995); ICC=0.98 (Berg et al., 1992a)(elderly). Mao et al. (2002) reported an overall ICC=0.95 (stroke) and a range of Kw for BBS items from 0.59-0.94.

Internal Consistency: Berg et al. (1992a) reported α=0.96 in a general elderly sample and α=0.83, 0.97 among stroke survivors. Item to total correlations ranged from 0.38-0.64 (elderly) and 0.67-0.95 (stroke group) (Berg et al., 1995). Mao et al. (2002) reported α=0.92-0.98.

Concurrent Validity: BBS correlated with global ratings of balance provided by a carer (0.47-0.61) and by the patients themselves (0.39-0.41) (Berg et al., 1992b). It also correlated with Timed Up and Go scores (r=-0.76; p<0.001), mobility items of the BI (r=0.67; p<0.001) and with speed and amplitude laboratory measures (Berg et al., 1992a). Liston and Brouwer (1996) showed BBS scores related to dynamic Balance Master measures (Left to right 3sec, Left to right 2 sec, Forward and backward 3sec, Forward and backward 2sec) (all p<0.05, r≥0.45) and limit of stability movement time (p<0.01, r≥0.591). Mao et al. (2002) reported strong relationships between BBS scores and Fugl-Meyer-(B) balance (r=0.90-0.92), and postural assessment scale for stroke patients (0.92-0.95) at 4 assessment times (14, 30, 90 and 180 days post stroke).

Construct Validity: Scores significantly correlated in the expected direction, with BI scores (r=0.80), Fugl-Meyer scores (0.62-0.94) (Berg et al., 1992b), and with BI (r= 0.86 to 0.91) (Mao et al., 2002). BBS scores are also reported to correlate with FIM: (r=0.57 to 0.70, p<0.05)(Juneja et al., 1998); (r=0.76; p<0.001)(Wee et al., 1999).

Construct Validity (known groups): Berg et al. (1992a); Berg et al. (1992b) found BBS scores differentiated groups based on the use of mobility aides (p<0.0001) and location of evaluation (home, rehabilitation program, acute hospital) at the end of study follow-up (p<0.0001) (Berg et al., 1992b); Wee et al. (1999); Wee et al. (2003) also showed that admission BBS was able to discriminate groups based on the discharge destination of home versus institution (p<0.0001), based on functional subgroups (p<0.001, stroke)(Stevenson, 2001), and based on ambulatory status (p≤0.005, stroke)(Au-Yeung et al., 2003).

Predictive Validity: Handicap situation in stroke survivors 6 months post discharge (multiple regression r2=0.66; p=0.002, stroke) (Desrosiers et al., 2002). Admission BBS moderately predicted length of stay (LOS) in a rehabilitation unit (r=-0.39, p<0.05; r2=0.362)(Juneja et al., 1998)(r=-0.36, p<0.001 when controlling for age (Wee et al., 1999). For patients who were admitted to rehabilitation within 14 days of stroke, r=-0.64, and after controlling for age r=-0.53 (Wee et al., 2003). Wee et al. (1999) demonstrated admission BBS, age and presence of social support to be predictors of discharge destination. Admission BBS score and presence/absence of family support increased prediction accuracy regarding discharge destination (Wee et al., 2003). BBS scores at 14, 30 and 90 days post stroke were predictive of motor assessment scale scores at 180 days post stroke event (Mao et al., 2002). BBS scores at admission correlated with FIM scores at discharge (r=0.56, p<0.000) and with length of stay (p=-0.55, p<0.000), but on regression analysis BBS score was not found to be a significant independent predictor of length of stay or of total discharge FIM score (Feld et al., 2001)(ABI). There was high specificity (96%) for predicting non-fallers in the elderly population, but 53% sensitivity in positive prediction of falls (Bogle Thorbahn & Newton, 1996). Shumway-Cook et al. (1997) found BBS related to fall status (p<0.01) and best predictor thereof (specificity 86%, sensitivity 77%).

Tested for ABI/ TBI patients?*