|
|
||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
Participants: Susan W Muir, BSc, BScPT, and Leland E Dibble, PT, PhD, ATC. Moderator: Rebecca L Craik, PT, PhD, FAPTA
Files in this Data Supplement:
"The original Berg Balance Scale, given the range of scores...was not intended to be a dichotomous score. It doesn't make much sense statistically or clinically to take a robust picture of a gradient of fall risk and dilute it down to yes or no or black or white."
"It was a misinterpretation of the original validation paper.""They go out and they fall and have an injury. We felt that those people were misdiagnosed."
"We don't necessarily need a new test, we just need a new paradigm."
"This is not a single-cause disorder"
The discussion centers around the following articles:
Dibble LE, Christensen J, Ballard DJ, Foreman KB. Diagnosis of fall risk in Parkinson disease: an analysis of individual and collective clinical balance test interpretation. Phys Ther. 2008;88:323-332.
Muir SW, Berg K, Chesworth B, Speechley M. Use of the Berg Balance Scale for predicting multiple falls in community dwelling elderly people: a prospective study. Phys Ther. 2008;88:449-459.
Running time: 16:22 (7.49 MB)
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |