Test–retest reliability, smallest real difference and concurrent validity of six different balance tests on young people with mild to moderate intellectual disability

• Published in: Physiotherapy Vol. 98; no. 4; pp. 318 - 324
• Main Authors: Blomqvist, Sven, Wester, Anita, Sundelin, Gunnevi, Rehn, Börje
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: England Elsevier Ltd 01.12.2012
• Subjects: Activities of Daily Living; Adolescent; Adolescents; Assessment; Disability Evaluation; Female; Functional reach; Humans; ICC; Intellectual disability; Intellectual Disability - rehabilitation; Learning disabilities; Learning disabled people; Male; Motor Activity; Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation; Physical Therapy Modalities - standards; Postural Balance; Reliability; Reproducibility of Results; Sensation Disorders - rehabilitation; Severity of Illness Index; Test-Retest reliability; Timed up and go; Young Adult; ICC; Timed up and go; Intellectual disability; Functional reach; Postural balance
• ISSN: 0031-9406; 1873-1465; 1873-1465
• DOI: 10.1016/j.physio.2011.05.006

Some studies have reported that people with intellectual disability may have reduced balance ability compared with the population in general. However, none of these studies involved adolescents, and the reliability and validity of balance tests in this population are not known. The purpose of this study was to examine the reliability of six different balance tests and to investigate their concurrent validity. Test–retest reliability assessment. All subjects were recruited from a special school for people with intellectual disability in Bollnäs, Sweden. Eighty-nine adolescents (35 females and 54 males) with mild to moderate intellectual disability with a mean age of 18 years (range 16 to 20 years). All subjects followed the same test protocol on two occasions within an 11-day period. Balance test performances. Intraclass correlation coefficients greater than 0.80 were achieved for four of the balance tests: Extended Timed Up and Go Test, Modified Functional Reach Test, One-leg Stance Test and Force Platform Test. The smallest real differences ranged from 12% to 40%; less than 20% is considered to be low. Concurrent validity among these balance tests varied between no and low correlation. The results indicate that these tests could be used to evaluate changes in balance ability over time in people with mild to moderate intellectual disability. The low concurrent validity illustrates the importance of knowing more about the influence of various sensory subsystems that are significant for balance among adolescents with intellectual disability.