| Title |
German version of the Community Balance and Mobility Scale
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Zeitschrift für Gerontologie und Geriatrie, February 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00391-018-1374-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Katharina Gordt, A. Stefanie Mikolaizak, Corinna Nerz, Carolin Barz, Thomas Gerhardy, Michaela Weber, Clemens Becker, Michael Schwenk |
| Abstract |
Tools to detect subtle balance deficits in high-functioning community-dwelling older adults are lacking. The Community Balance and Mobility Scale (CBM) is a valuable tool to measure balance deficits in this group; however, it is not yet available in the German language. The aim was 1) to translate and cross-culturally adapt the CBM into the German language and 2) to investigate the measurement properties of the German CBM (G-CBM). The original CBM was translated into the German language according to established guidelines. A total of 51 older adults (mean age 69.9 ± 7.1 years) were recruited to measure construct validity by comparing the G‑CBM against standardized balance and/or mobility assessments including the Fullerton Advanced Balance Scale (FAB), Berg Balance Scale (BBS), 3 m Tandem Walk (3MTW), 8 Level Balance Scale (8LBS), 30 s Chair Stand Test (30CST), Timed Up and Go (TUG) test, gait speed, and the Falls Efficacy Scale International (FES-I). Intrarater and interrater reliability and internal consistency reliability were estimated using intraclass correlations (ICC) and Cronbach's alpha, respectively. Ceiling effects were calculated as the percentage of the sample scoring the maximum score. The G‑CBM correlated excellently with FAB and BBS (ρ = 0.78-0.85; P < 0.001), good with 3MTW, TUG, and FES-I (ρ = -0.55 to -0.61; P < 0.001), and moderately with 8LBS, 30CST, and habitual gait speed (ρ = 0.32-0.46; P < 0.001). Intrarater (ICC3,k = 0.998; P < 0.001) and interrater (ICC2,k = 0.996; P < 0.001) reliability, and internal consistency reliability (α = 0.998) were also high. The G‑CBM did not show ceiling effects. The G‑CBM is a valid and reliable tool for measuring subtle balance deficits in older high-functioning adults. The absence of ceiling effects emphasizes the use of this scale in this cohort. The G‑CBM can now be utilized in clinical practice. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 45 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 45 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 11% |
| Researcher | 3 | 7% |
| Professor | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 8 | 18% |
| Unknown | 14 | 31% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 11 | 24% |
| Sports and Recreations | 6 | 13% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 11% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 4% |
| Psychology | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 6 | 13% |
| Unknown | 14 | 31% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 February 2018.
All research outputs
#15,492,327
of 23,023,224 outputs
Outputs from Zeitschrift für Gerontologie und Geriatrie
#202
of 365 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#273,375
of 445,207 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Zeitschrift für Gerontologie und Geriatrie
#3
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,023,224 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 365 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.6. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 445,207 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.