AUTHORS: Kevin M. Swartz, ATC; Jordan T. Eshbaugh, ACT; Schott L. Bruce, EdD, ATC
BACKGROUND: A correlation study comparing SBA to BESS has been done, but not for comparing SBA to BBS. Pearson r for SBA to BESS (r = – 0.787, p < 0.01). No correlational studies comparing BESS to BBS were found in the literature. A pair of concurrent validity studies comparing SBA to BBS have been done, but no validity studies for SBA & BESS. No statistical difference between the SBA & BBS devices on a firm surface ( p > 0.05) indicating validity. Statistical difference found standing on a foam surface (p < 0.05). No statistical difference using a single leg stance among SBA & BBS devices ( p = 0.818) 4 indicating validity. The purpose of our study was to determine if a relationship exists between BESS, BBS, and SBA.
METHODS: Groups of 3 subjects were assessed simultaneously, randomly assigned the order for each balance platform. The BBS and SBA were scored by each unit, measuring the subject’s postural sway. Each unit graded on a different numerical scale: BBS scale 0 (perfect balance) to 4 (poor balance), SBA scale 100 (perfect balance to 0 (no balance), The BESS was scored by the number of errors the subject committed while in the specified stances. Balance scores were then converted to z-score for standardization & correlations were run with like stances.
RESULTS: There were no significant correlations between any of the three balance assessment tools. Pearson r correlation statistics were run on the balance assessment tools. There were no statistically significant results found with these subjects, in these circumstances