Balance Performance in Collegiate Athletes: A Comparison of Balance Error Scoring System Measures

View/Open

AUTHORS: Nicole C. Dabbs, Nicole M. Sauls, Alice Zayer and Harish Chander

METHODS: One hundred and eighty-four Division-II male and female athletes (age 20.07 ± 1.67 years, height 175.54 ± 11.94 cm, weight 75.24 ± 14.20 kg) volunteered to complete a single testing session. Balance measures were assessed with Sway Medical’s Concussion Management System Application (Sway Medical, Tulsa, OK, USA, version used) an application software that uses tri-axial accelerometers within the iOS mobile device to calculate postural sway during BESS. All participants completed one testing session that included a familiarization and a testing condition for BESS test, using both the BBS and SMBA devices simultaneously. Pearson’s r correlations were used to determine the relationship between the BBS and SMBA during each of the five conditions and an overall score. Correlational strengths were based on the
during each of the five conditions and an overall score.

RESULTS: There were significant, moderate, and negative correlations for DL (p < 0.001, r = −0.32, R2 = 0.10) J. Funct. Morphol. Kinesiol. 2017, 2, 26 2 4 of 7 and TL (p ≤ 0.001, r = −0.32, R = 0.10). There was no significant correlation (p = 0.08, r = −0.13, R2 = 0.01) for TR. There were significant, high, and negative correlations for SLR (p < 0.001, r = −0.64, conditions showed a significant, high, and negative correlation (p < 0.001, r = −0.70, R2 = 0.50) (Figure R2 = 0.41) and SLL (p ≤ 0.001, r = −0.70, R2 = 0.50). The overall score incorporating all five. The SMBA was also validated through the analysis of z-scores showing no significant (p = 1.0) stance conditions showed a significant, high, and negative correlation (p < 0.001, r = −0.70, R2 = 0.50) statistical differences for all five stance conditions and the overall score between the two systems. The SMBA was also validated through the analysis of z-scores showing no significant (p = 1.0) statistical differences for all five stance conditions and the overall score between the two systems.

CONCLUSION: In today’s society, electronic devices are widely used, and the SMBA is easily accessible, simple to administer in any setting, and an affordable tool for balance and postural stability assessments, especially using the BESS protocol. The results from the study demonstrate that the SMBA could be used as a valid measure during BESS in healthy collegiate Division-II athletes.