Skip to main content
Download PDF

Construct validity of the Mini-BESTest in individuals with chronic pain in specialized pain care

BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders volume 24, Article number: 391 (2023) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Balance assessment scales are important clinical tests to identify balance impairments. Chronic pain (> 3 months) is associated with impaired dynamic balance; however, very few balance assessment scales are psychometrically evaluated for the population. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the construct validity and internal consistency of the Mini-BESTest for individuals with chronic pain in specialized pain care.

Methods

In this cross-sectional study, 180 individuals with chronic pain (> 3 months) were assessed with the Mini-BESTest and included in the analyses. For construct validity, five alternative factor structures were evaluated using a confirmatory factor analysis. In addition, we tested the a priori hypotheses about convergent validity with the 10-meter walk test, and divergent validity with the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI): pain intensity, the Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia-11 (TSK-11), and the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS-SW). Internal consistency was evaluated for the model with the best fit.

Results

A one-factor model with added covariance via the modification indices showed adequate fit indices. In line with our hypotheses, Mini-BESTest showed convergent validity (rs = > 0.70) with the 10-meter walk test, and divergent validity (rs = < 0.50) with BPI pain intensity, TSK-11, and PCS-SW. Internal consistency for the one-factor model was good (α = 0.92).

Conclusions

Our study supported the construct validity and internal consistency of the Mini-BESTest for measuring balance in individuals with chronic pain, who were referred to specialized pain care. The one-factor model showed an adequate fit. In comparison, models with subscales did not reach convergence, or showed high correlations between subscales, implying that Mini-BESTest is measuring one construct in this sample. We, therefore, propose using the total score, instead of subscale scores, for individuals with chronic pain. However, further studies are necessary to establish the reliability of the Mini-BESTest in the population.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

Individuals with chronic pain, i.e., primary or secondary pain > 3 months [1], describe having balance problems [2] and falls in their everyday lives [3, 4]. Several studies indicate that chronic pain is associated with impaired dynamic balance [5, 6], even so, how balance affects daily functioning and how to identify individuals with balance impairments in pain care are less studied areas.

Balance assessment scales, based on a set of functional tests, are used more and more in clinical pain research. The Mini Balance Evaluation Systems Test (Mini-BESTest) [6,7,8], the Balance Evaluation Systems Test (BESTest) [3], and the Berg balance scale [9] are examples of scales that have been used to explore balance, functional performance, or as an outcome measure in individuals with chronic pain. The Mini-BESTest includes 14 items measuring dynamic balance, divided into four subscales [10]. The scale was originally developed for adults with diverse neurological diagnoses and is now widely used in clinical practice and research [11]. In comparison, the Mini-BESTest requires less time than the BESTest, and it is often preferred to the Berg balance scale due to the lack of ceiling effects [11]. However, the psychometric properties of Mini-BESTest in individuals with chronic pain have not been evaluated.

When evaluating the Mini-BESTest psychometrically, it is important to consider whether the subscales reflect different constructs of balance control, i.e., if the scale is multi- or uni-dimensional. The Mini-BESTest was originally developed as a shorter version of the multi-dimensional scale BESTest [12], and scores from the subscales are sometimes reported separately [6, 13]. Nonetheless, consistent with a conceptual framework based on the hypothesis of integrated control of posture and gait [14, 15], all items on the Mini-BESTest were originally proposed to reflect a uni-dimensional construct of dynamic balance [10]. This original model was later found to be well-fitting for data from individuals with different neurological conditions [16,17,18,19]. However, cases of a multi-dimensional model have also been suggested [20, 21].

A range of biopsychosocial factors are related to pain disability in individuals with chronic pain [22,23,24], and it has been suggested that factors such as pain intensity [25], fear of movement, and pain catastrophizing [26, 27] affect balance. Hence, when interpreting the results from a balance assessment, a highly important aspect is whether the balance scale can differentiate balance from other possibly related constructs, such as fear of movement, pain catastrophizing and pain intensity. Another aspect to explore to capture possible sex differences concerning balance [28] is whether the scale measures similarly for both sexes.

Thus, evaluating the Mini-BESTest psychometrically in individuals with severe pain problems is of great value for clinical care and research. Given the lack of any gold standard scales for balance assessment for individuals with chronic pain, an adequate first step is to evaluate the construct validity of the Mini-BESTest in this population [29]. Thus, this study aimed to evaluate the construct validity and internal consistency of the Mini-BESTest, Swedish version 2.1.1, for individuals with chronic pain in specialized pain care. This was done by examining its structural validity, and testing priori hypotheses to evaluate convergent and divergent validity. Another aim was to study if there were any sex differences concerning the criteria for convergent or divergent validity.

The hypotheses were formulated based on the literature and in relation to suggested cut-offs for convergent and divergent validity [30]. Consistent with the suggested conceptual model for Mini-BESTest [14, 15], we expected a convergent validity (rs = ≥ 0.70, positive direction) between Mini-BESTest and walking speed (hypothesis 1). Furthermore, we hypothesized that the constructs of pain intensity, fear of movement/(re)injury, and pain catastrophizing would be related to balance, while still being different constructs [25,26,27]. We, therefore, expected a divergent validity (rs = < 0.50, negative direction) between Mini-BESTest and Brief Pain Inventory pain intensity (hypothesis 2), followed by a weaker relationship between Mini-BESTest and the Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia-11 (hypothesis 3) and the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (hypothesis 4), respectively.

Methods

Sample and setting

The study is part of the U-PAIN cohort study aiming to explore the benefits and risks of opioid use in chronic pain, more extensively described elsewhere [31]. The study was approved by the Swedish Ethical Review Authority’s regional ethics board in Uppsala (EPN Uppsala D-No 2016 − 376, 2020–05283), and complies with the Declaration of Helsinki. For the planning and reporting of the study, the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) checklist was followed [32].

Participants for the cohort study were recruited among individuals referred to secondary or tertiary care at the Pain Center at Uppsala University Hospital. Inclusion criteria were: ≥18 years old and pain duration of ≥ 3 months at the time of the referral. Individuals receiving acute care related to active cancer treatment or palliative care, and individuals who had cognitive impairment, or were illiterate in the Swedish language, were excluded. The sample in this study includes all participants assessed using the Mini-BESTest among the first 200 participants recruited to the cohort between June 2018 and January 2021, which is considered as a sufficient sample size in relation to the planned analyses [32].

Data were collected in conjunction with the individuals’ first visit of their current referral to the pain center. All individuals received written and oral information before giving written consent to participate. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were filled in by using a personal secure log-in to the Swedish Healthcare Guide’s digital platform, within six weeks before or after the research visit. Paper and pencil versions were offered upon request. During the research visit, data on the Mini-BESTest and 10-meter walk test were collected by raters trained in the test administration.

Measures

Data for sample characterization were collected by using a study-specific questionnaire. Pain classification, according to the International Association for the study of Pain (IASP) classification of chronic pain for the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11) [1], was based on retrospective data from medical records.

Mini-BESTest is proposed to measure dynamic balance using 14 items, divided into four subscales: anticipatory postural adjustments, reactive postural control, sensory orientation, and dynamic gait [10, 33]. Each item is scored on a 3-grade ordinal scale, where 0 = unable or requiring help to perform and 2 = normal function. Total scores range from 0 to 28 [10]. Two items are assessed on both the right and left side, only calculating the worse score in the total score [13]. In this study, if a participant declined to perform one or more items, these were scored with 0. Mini-BESTest has excellent test-retest reliability and inter-rater reliability in individuals with different, mainly neurological, conditions [11], as well as high concurrent validity with other balance measures in individuals with stroke and Parkinson’s disease [33]. To estimate the minimal clinically important difference for different conditions, for example, Type 2 diabetes patients with peripheral neuropathy, and patients with different neurological conditions, a change between 3 and 5 points has been suggested [34,35,36,37]. For the Swedish version, good test-retest reliability and inter-rater reliability are found in a clinical setting for individuals having Parkinson’s disease [38]. Psychometric studies on individuals with chronic pain are lacking.

For hypotheses testing, variables were selected based on previous literature on association with balance [14, 15, 25,26,27]. The choice of specific instruments was dependent on measures included in the comprehensive cohort study in which this study is embedded. They all represent core domains in specialized pain care.

The 10-meter walk test (10MWT) was used to measure comfortable walking speed (CWS) and maximum walking speed (MWS). For the calculation of walking speed in meters per second (m/s), an average of three trials was used [39]. An acceleration phase was applied, and a handheld stop-watch was used for timing [39]. Initial support for the test-retest reliability and interrater reliability is provided for pregnant women with pelvic girdle pain [40], as well as for using hand held stop-watches [41]. To estimate the minimal clinically important difference for older adults and individuals with neurological diseases, a change between 0.10 and 0.16 m/s has been suggested [42, 43]. Psychometric studies on individuals with chronic pain are lacking.

The Swedish version of Brief Pain Inventory - Short form (BPI-SF) was used to measure pain intensity and pain interference [44]. In the subscale pain intensity, the current pain and pain intensity at its worst, least, and on average are scored on a numeric rating scale (NRS), with anchors ranging from 0, no pain, to 10, pain as bad as you can imagine. In the subscale pain interference, the impact of pain on functioning is scored on NRSs, with anchors ranging from 0, does not interfere, to 10, complete interference. A composite mean score was computed for each subscale [45]. The interference subscale was used for the background characteristics only. The scale has been found to be reliable in pain-related musculoskeletal conditions [46]. The validity is supported in individuals in specialized pain care with chronic non-cancer pain [47]; moreover, a two-factor model with the constructs pain intensity and pain interference has been suggested [46, 48]. To estimate the minimal clinically important difference for pain measures for individuals with fibromyalgia, a change of approximately 2.2 points in the severity score has been suggested [49]. Psychometric studies for the Swedish version of the BPI-SF are lacking. In our sample, internal consistency for pain intensity was α = 0.86, which is consistent with previous studies (α = 0.85) [47].

The Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia-11 (TSK-11) was used to measure fear of movement/(re)injury. Eleven items are individually scored on a 4-point Likert scale, where 1 = strongly disagree and 4 = strongly agree [50]. The total score ranges from 11 to 44 points [50]. Both validity and reliability are supported for individuals with chronic pain [50]. For the structural validity, a model with the two latent constructs, somatic focus and activity avoidance, is suggested to contribute to an overall second-order construct of fear of movement/(re)injury [51, 52]. For the Swedish version, the construct validity in individuals with musculoskeletal pain [51] and older individuals with chronic pain [52] is supported. The construct validity and reliability in the latter population were acceptable [52]. To identify an important reduction in the fear of movement for individuals with chronic low back pain, a change with approximately 4 points has been suggested [50]. Internal consistency for the total scale was α = 0.84 in our sample, which is consistent with previous studies, where α ranged between 0.79 and 0.87 [50, 52].

The Pain Catastrophizing Scale – Swedish version (PCS-SW) was used to measure pain catastrophizing. Thirteen items are individually scored on a 5-point Likert scale, where 0 = never and 4 = all the time [53]. The total score ranges from 0 to 52 points [53]. PCS is well-established and considered reliable [53, 54] and valid [53]. For the structural validity, a model with the three latent constructs, rumination, magnification, and helplessness, is suggested to contribute to an overall second-order construct of pain catastrophizing [53, 55]. Initial support for structural validity and internal consistency in individuals with chronic musculoskeletal pain is provided for a Swedish version [55]. For the minimal clinically important difference for individuals with chronic low back pain undergoing multidisciplinary rehabilitation, a change between 8 and 14 points has been suggested [56]. Internal consistency for the total scale was α = 0.93 in our sample, which is congruent with previous studies (α = 0.92)[54, 55].

Statistical analyses

A confirmatory factor analysis was performed using R version 4.1.1. All other statistical analyses were performed using the IBM SPSS Statistics, version 26 (IBM Corp., Armonk, New York). All statistical tests were 2-tailed, and a p value of ≤ 0.05 was considered significant.

For interpretability, the number (%) of participants scored with each score (0–2), as well as the mean and SD, were calculated for all fourteen Mini-BESTest items to illustrate the distribution of the sample over the scores [29]. In addition, the number (%) of participants that declined to perform each item was calculated. To compare the respective score for each item from the group that did not perform all items with those from the group with a complete Mini-BESTest, Fisher’s exact test was used. An independent t-test was used to compare the walking speed between the two groups. The floor and ceiling effects were measured using the proportion of participants who scored with the minimum and maximum score, respectively. The floor effects were considered present if > 15% of the participants scored 0 points on the Mini-BESTest [57]. Similarly, the ceiling effects were considered present if > 15% of the participants scored 28 points [57].

A confirmatory factor analysis was conducted to evaluate the structural validity of Mini-BESTest. For the confirmatory factor analysis, diagonally weighted least squares with polychoric correlation matrix were used for modeling the Mini-BESTest items as ordinal data [58]. Following the methodology used by Godi et al. [18], five alternative models [10, 20, 21] were compared. Model 1 was based on the original one-factor model [10], where all 14 items were assumed to be related to one latent factor reflecting dynamic balance. Model 2 was a first-order 4-factor model, where the 14 items were divided into four latent factors (anticipatory postural adjustments, reactive postural control, sensory orientation, and dynamic gait) based on the four subscales. Model 3 was a second-order model, where the four first-order latent variables of model 2 were assumed to be related to the second-order latent construct dynamic balance. Model 4 was a second-order model, consisting of 13 measured items (excluding item 7) [21]. Three first-order latent factors (anticipatory postural adjustments, reactive postural control, and sensory orientation) were assumed to be related to the second-order latent construct dynamic balance. Model 5 was a first-order model similar to model 2, although consisting of 13 items (excluding item 7), divided into four latent factors (anticipatory postural adjustments, postural response, sensory orientation, and stability in gait) [20].

As a first step to consider a model as reasonably correct, we investigated if all factor loadings were at least 0.5 and ideally ≥ 0.70, the latter as an indication of the factor explaining at least half of the variance in the indicator [59]. Further, we investigated if the correlations between the factors were < 0.90 as an indication of them measuring different constructs [59, 60]. Secondly, to assess the fit of the model to the data, five indexes were used: Chi-square test (χ 2; acceptable fit if not significant), the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA; < 0.05 good model fit, ≤ 0.08 adequate fit), the comparative fit index (CFI), and the Tucker-Lewis index (TLI) (for both: ≥ 0.95 good fit, ≥ 0.90 adequate fit), and the standardized root-mean-square residual (SRMR; < 0.05 good model fit, 0.05 to 0.09 adequate fit) [59, 60]. To achieve better model fit to the data, modification indices were allowed [59].

Convergent validity and divergent validity between Mini-BESTest and other measures (hypotheses 1–4) were assessed using Spearman rank correlation [29]. In addition to the analyses for the total sample, the correlations were assessed for females and males separately. For correlation coefficients, the following criteria were used: > 0.70 indicates convergent validity and < 0.50 indicates divergent validity [30]. Participants missing a PROM were excluded from the analyses, including that specific PROM.

Internal consistency was evaluated for the model with the best fit using Cronbach’s alpha [29]. The items were considered sufficiently correlated if the α coefficient was > 0.70 [61].

Results

Reasons for exclusions, respectively, declined functional tests, among the 200 individuals included in the study are presented in Fig. 1. In total, 180 individuals (112 females, 68 males; mean age 51.6, SD 15.9) were assessed with the Mini-BESTest and included in the analyses (Table 1).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Flowchart of the included and excluded data

a Declined both the Mini-BESTest and the 10 m Walk Test. Mini-BESTest = Mini-Balance Evaluation Systems Test. 10 MWT = 10 m Walk Test, both comfortable and maximum walking speed. BPI = Brief Pain Inventory. TSK-11 = Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia-11. PCS-SW = Pain Catastrophizing Scale - Swedish version

Full size image
Table 1 Sociodemographic and clinical characteristics of all participants, separated by sex
Full size table

Interpretability

As shown in Table 2, the sample was distributed over the whole range of scores of the Mini-BESTest. Twenty-four participants declined to perform one or more items included in the Mini-BESTest. Compared to outpatients, a higher proportion of inpatients declined to perform one or more items (7.4% vs. 25.4%). Of all participants, one participant (0.6%) received the lowest total score, and four participants (2.2%) the highest total score. The total scores were not normally distributed (skewness − 1.0).

Table 2 Distribution of scores and number of individuals declining each item
Full size table

Construct validity

In all of the converging models (Models 1, 2, and 5), the factor loadings were > 0.70 for all items, except for item 14 (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2
figure 2

Confirmatory factor analysis for Model 1, Model 2, and Model 5

* Confirmatory factor analysis for the original unidimensional model, presented without added covariance (A; Model 1 A) and with added covariance between items 4–5 and 7–9 (B; Model 1B), a first order 4-factor model based on the four sub-sections in the test (C; Model 2), and a first-order 4-factor model without item 7 (D; Model 5). The factor, i.e., the latent construct, is illustrated by an oval. The item, i.e., the indicator, is illustrated by a rectangle. One-headed arrows from the factors to the items represent the factor loading, and the two-headed arrows represent the covariance between the suggested factors. Each measurement error (ε1–14) is presented by the circle below the item. Item 1 - sit to stand; item 2 - rise to toes; item 3 - stand on 1 leg; items 4, 5, 6 - compensatory stepping correction – forward, backward, lateral; item 7 - stance with feet together and eyes open, on firm surface; item 8 - stance with feet together and eyes closed, on foam surface; item 9 - stance with eyes closed, on an inclined surface; item 10 - walk with change in gait speed; item 11 - walk with horizontal head turns; item 12 - walk with pivot turns; item 13 - step over obstacles; item 14 - timed up & go with dual task. APA = anticipatory postural adjustments; RPC = reactive postural control; SO = sensory orientation; DG = dynamic gait; PR = postural response; SG = stability in gait

Full size image

The original unidimensional Model 1 [10] failed the χ 2 test, although the other fit indices did meet the thresholds for an acceptable fit (Table 3, Model 1 A). When the covariance was added via the modification indices, the model passed the χ 2 test and showed a good overall fit to the data, except for one index that showed an adequate fit (Table 3, Model 1B).

Table 3 Goodness-of-Fit indices for confirmatory factor analysis models for Mini-BESTest a
Full size table

For Models 2 and 5, high correlations (> 0.90) between the first and the fourth subscale indicates that the different constructs were not measured (Fig. 2). This implies that the models were too complex and therefore overfitting. The interpretation of the models as overfitting was further reinforced by high correlations between the other subscales, as well as fit indices ≤ 0 or > 1 (Table 2, Models 2 and 5) [59]. The two second-order models, Models 3 and 4 [21], did not reach convergence.

Correlations were > 0.70 between Mini-BESTest and 10MWT and < 0.50 between the Mini-BESTest and BPI pain intensity, TSK-11, and PCS-SW, respectively (see Table 4). All correlations were in expected directions and in line with our a priori hypotheses for convergent and divergent validity for the total sample, as well as for females and for males.

Table 4 Convergent and Divergent validity (Spearman’s rho correlation coefficient) between the Mini-BESTest and other scales
Full size table

Internal consistency

The overall internal consistency of the scale for the unidimensional model 1 was good, according to Cronbach’s alpha (α = 0.92).

Discussion

This study is the first to evaluate the construct validity and internal consistency of the Mini-BESTest in a chronic pain population in specialized pain care. Our results show that the Mini-BESTest has satisfactory internal consistency and construct validity for the sample. Data supported the finding that the original one-factor model with added covariance via the modification indices had good internal consistency and fit the data from a chronic pain sample well and was also better than the alternative models. In line with our pre-defined hypotheses, Mini-BESTest showed convergent validity with 10MWT, and divergent validity with BPI pain intensity on average, TSK-11, and PCS-SW. Secondly, there were no sex differences in relation to the criteria for convergent or divergent validity.

The one-factor model for Mini-BESTest (model 1) showed a good overall fit to the data from this sample with chronic pain. This result is in line with both the original [10] as well as more recent studies [16,17,18,19], supporting the structural validity of the scale in this new population. In agreement with a confirmatory factor analysis performed by Godi et al. [18], adding covariance between specific items, suggested by the modification indices, improved the model fit to the data. In scales with multiple items, some items may share a common variance beyond the variance explained by the latent factor. Thus, adding covariance between error terms for items sharing a common method can be a way to explain redundancy between items [60]. Furthermore, the one-factor model showed high internal reliability (α = 0.92), which is similar to the values reported in other populations (α = 0.89–0.96)[11].

In contrast to previous studies [18, 20], none of the first-order 4-factor models (models 3 and 5) showed an acceptable fit. Both high correlations between subscales, and fit indices, support the interpretation of the model as overfitting [59]. In line with Godi et al. [18], neither of the second-order models (models 3 and 4) reached convergence. To summarize, models with subscales were interpreted as ill-fitting, which implies that the subscales measure the same construct. We, therefore, propose using the total score, instead of the subscale scores, for individuals with chronic pain.

In all models, the factor loadings were high for all items, except for item 14. As in previous research [18, 20], item 14 did not exceed the threshold in any of the converging models. In item 14, the difference in performance is measured between the single-task Time Up and Go (TUG), and the TUG with a cognitive task, i.e., dual-task interference [62]. Even if dual-task interference is closely related to balance, a lower factor loading could be expected, since the two constructs do not overlap fully. Therefore, we analyzed the one-factor model without item 14, resulting in only negligible differences (supplementary Table 1). Considering that there was no improvement the in structural validity, we do not propose excluding item 14, in accordance with previous studies [18].

Moreover, item 14 adds a clinically important aspect since numerous activities in daily living are performed within dual-task conditions [62]. Dual-task interference has been explored in individuals with chronic pain with some discrepancy as to whether an added dual-task will result in an interference in the motor performance [63, 64], possibly leading to an increased risk for falls [65], or a compromised cognitive performance to optimize balance [66]. Furthermore, some studies suggest that the dual-task has a distracting effect, leading to an improvement in balance [67]. In item 14, the same score is given irrespective of which of the two tasks are being interfered with. To be able to fully interpret the dual-task interference and follow change over time, we suggest also noting if the added dual-task results in a decrease in either the walking speed, or the cognitive task, or both. This would further increase the clinical value of the item [68].

The hypothesis for convergent validity was supported by the correlations above 0.7 between the Mini-BESTest and 10MWT. For two measures of the same construct, one could argue that a higher cut-off score would be preferred [30]. Still, based on the hypotheses on the integrated control of posture and gait [14, 15], the instruments were not expected to measure the same constructs, but rather the overlapping constructs [69]. The relation between the Mini-BESTest and 10 MWT has not previously been examined among individuals with chronic pain. However, comparable correlations have been found in other populations [70].

The hypotheses for divergent validity were supported by the weak to negligible correlations between the Mini-BESTest and BPI pain intensity, TSK-11 and PSC-SW, respectively. Pain catastrophizing and fear of movement are associated with pain-related outcomes, such as disability [71] and activity avoidance [72], which may affect balance. In addition, these constructs have been suggested as possible factors that can influence the physical capacity test in individuals with chronic pain [73]. However, the divergent validity implies that in this population, the Mini-BESTest was capturing a construct with little overlap with the construct measured by the BPI, TSK-11, and PCS-SW.

Based on the criteria for our hypotheses, no floor or ceiling effect was found. These results are in line with a review of the psychometric properties of the Mini-BESTest, where the proportion of the sample that reached the top score ranged from 0.9 to 4.3% [11]. However, the scores in our study were not normally distributed, with a majority on the higher end of the scale, indicating a limitation in being able to detect a change in individuals with higher scores on the scale. As in other studies [16], a large proportion of the sample received the highest score on items 1 and 7, respectively. This indicates that these items do not detect the variations in the level of balance sufficiently, which was also confirmed by the low SD of the item scores.

This study has some limitations and strengths worth considering. The Mini-BESTest and the PROMs were not administered at the same time. Since the PROMs were also part of the clinical routine, all individuals were asked to answer them in advance of their first clinical visit, which was in conjunction with the baseline visit. This might add a risk that either the balance, or the factors measured by the PROMs, could change during the time between assessments. However, in the study, the included PROMs are regarded as relatively stable measures of the factors they assess [11, 41, 52, 74,75,76]. In addition, the health-related variables were not expected to change significantly during the set period of a maximum of six weeks prior to or after the baseline visit. Nevertheless, this could have affected the correlations found for the divergent validity.

The balance assessments were performed by different raters, which could affect the reliability. Mini-BESTest has shown good to excellent intra-rater reliability in other populations [11, 38]. To further improve the reliability in the current study, all raters were trained before the start of the study. However, more studies are needed to evaluate both the inter-rater reliability and the test-retest reliability for the Mini-BESTest in individuals with chronic pain. In addition, to use the Mini-BESTest to measure any change in balance over time in this population, further studies are needed to validate the responsiveness aspects, such as minimal clinically important change.

During testing, some participants declined to perform one or more items. This might also happen in clinical care. Still, strategies to handle this are not described in the Mini-BESTest manual. In this study, the item declined was scored with 0 (unable or requiring help to perform). However, we cannot be sure if the scores represent those individuals’ true balance ability or if their refusal to perform is a result of something else. When comparing participants that declined to perform one or more items with the group with a complete test, the group with non-performers had lower scores on all Mini-BESTest items. Furthermore, the comfortable walking speed in the group of non-performers was lower compared to the group that completed the test (supplementary Table 2). Altogether, this could indicate that the group declined to perform items because of balance impairments.

The Mini-BESTest data were collected in conjunction with routine care, hence, in the setting where the instrument will be used. The fact that the study was performed in a clinical setting is a strength for interpretation of clinical use and research [29]. Furthermore, the sample could be considered representative of the target populations of individuals with severe pain problems, referred to a specialized pain center [77]. The results can therefore be generalized to this specific population and setting.

Conclusion

In conclusion, our findings support that the Mini-BESTest has adequate internal consistency and construct validity for measuring balance in a sample of individuals with chronic pain referred to specialized pain care. The one-factor model showed an adequate fit. In comparison, models with subscales did not reach convergence, or showed high correlations between subscales, implying that the Mini-BESTest is measuring one construct in this sample. We, therefore, propose using the total score, instead of subscale scores, for individuals with chronic pain. This study is the first to evaluate the psychometric properties of Mini-BESTest in a chronic pain population; hence, further studies are necessary to establish reliability for the Mini-BESTest in the population.

Data availability

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

Mini-BESTest:

Mini Balance Evaluation Systems test

BPI-SF:

Brief Pain Inventory – Short form

TSK:

Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia

PCS-SW:

Pain Catastrophizing Scale – Swedish version

BESTest:

Balance Evaluation Systems test

COSMIN:

Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instrument

PROMs:

Patient-reported Outcome Measures

IASP:

International Association for the Study of Pain

ICD:

International Classification of Diseases

10MWT:

10-meter walk test

CWS:

Comfortable walking speed

MWS:

Maximum walking speed

NRS:

Numeric rating scale

RMSEA:

Root mean square error of approximation

CFI:

Comparative fit index

TLI:

Tucker-Lewis index

SRMR:

Standardized root-mean-square residuals

APA:

Anticipatory postural adjustments

RPC:

Reactive postural control

SO:

Sensory orientation

DG:

Dynamic gait

PR:

Postural response

SG:

Stability in gait

COV:

Covariate

TUG:

Timed Up and Go

References

  1. Treede RD, Rief W, Barke A, Aziz Q, Bennett MI, Benoliel R, et al. Chronic pain as a symptom or a disease: the IASP classification of Chronic Pain for the International classification of Diseases (ICD-11). Pain. 2019;160(1):19–27.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Bennett RM, Jones J, Turk DC, Russell IJ, Matallana L. An internet survey of 2,596 people with fibromyalgia. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2007;8:27.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Jones KD, Horak FB, Winters-Stone K, Irvine JM, Bennett RM. Fibromyalgia is associated with impaired balance and falls. J Clin Rheumatol. 2009;15(1):16–21.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Leveille SG, Jones RN, Kiely DK, Hausdorff JM, Shmerling RH, Guralnik JM, et al. Chronic musculoskeletal pain and the occurrence of falls in an older population. JAMA. 2009;302(20):2214–21.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Núñez-Fuentes D, Obrero-Gaitán E, Zagalaz-Anula N, Ibáñez-Vera AJ, Achalandabaso-Ochoa A, López-Ruiz MDC et al. Alteration of Postural Balance in Patients with Fibromyalgia Syndrome-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Diagnostics (Basel). 2021;11(1).

  6. Fuentes-Márquez P, Rodríguez-Torres JR, Valenza MC, Ortíz-Rubio A, Ariza-Mateos MJ, Cabrera-Martos I. Balance ability and posture in postmenopausal women with chronic pelvic pain. Menopause. 2018;25(7):783–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Rodríguez-Torres J, López-López L, Cabrera-Martos I, Prados-Román E, Granados-Santiago M, Valenza MC. Effects of an Individualized Comprehensive Rehabilitation Program on impaired Postural Control in Women with Chronic Pelvic Pain: a Randomized Controlled Trial. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2020;101(8):1304–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Cerón Lorente L, García Ríos MC, Navarro Ledesma S, Tapia Haro RM, Casas Barragán A, Correa-Rodríguez M et al. Functional status and body mass index in postmenopausal women with fibromyalgia: A case-control study. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019;16(22).

  9. Costa ID, Gamundí A, Miranda JG, França LG, De Santana CN, Montoya P. Altered functional performance in patients with Fibromyalgia. Front Hum Neurosci. 2017;11:14.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Franchignoni F, Horak F, Godi M, Nardone A, Giordano A. Using psychometric techniques to improve the balance evaluation Systems Test: the mini-BESTest. J Rehabil Med. 2010;42(4):323–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Di Carlo S, Bravini E, Vercelli S, Massazza G, Ferriero G. The Mini-BESTest: a review of psychometric properties. Int J Rehabil Res. 2016;39(2):97–105.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Horak FB, Wrisley DM, Frank J. The balance evaluation Systems Test (BESTest) to differentiate balance deficits. Phys Ther. 2009;89(5):484–98.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. King L, Horak F. On the mini-BESTest: scoring and the reporting of total scores. Phys Ther. 2013;93(4):571–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Grasso R, Zago M, Lacquaniti F. Interactions between posture and locomotion: motor patterns in humans walking with bent posture versus erect posture. J Neurophysiol. 2000;83(1):288–300.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Nardone A, Godi M, Grasso M, Guglielmetti S, Schieppati M. Stabilometry is a predictor of gait performance in chronic hemiparetic stroke patients. Gait Posture. 2009;30(1):5–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Franchignoni F, Godi M, Guglielmetti S, Nardone A, Giordano A. Enhancing the usefulness of the Mini-BESTest for measuring dynamic balance: a Rasch validation study. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med. 2015;51(4):429–37.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Goljar N, Giordano A, Schnurrer Luke Vrbanić T, Rudolf M, Banicek-Sosa I, Albensi C, et al. Rasch validation and comparison of slovenian, croatian, and italian versions of the Mini-BESTest in patients with subacute stroke. Int J Rehabil Res. 2017;40(3):232–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Godi M, Arcolin I, Leavy B, Giardini M, Corna S, Franzén E. Insights into the Mini-BESTest Scoring System: Comparison of 6 Different Structural Models. Phys Ther. 2021.

  19. Franchignoni F, Godi M, Corna S, Giordano A. Rasch validation of the Mini-BESTest in people with Parkinson disease. J Neurol Phys Ther. 2022.

  20. Miyata K, Hasegawa S, Iwamoto H, Otani T, Kaizu Y, Shinohara T, et al. Comparison of the structural validity of three balance evaluation Systems Test in older adults with femoral or vertebral fracture. J Rehabil Med. 2020;52(7):jrm00079.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Benka Wallén M, Sorjonen K, Löfgren N, Franzén E. Structural validity of the mini-balance evaluation Systems Test (Mini-BESTest) in people with mild to moderate Parkinson Disease. Phys Ther. 2016;96(11):1799–806.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Linton SJ, Shaw WS. Impact of psychological factors in the experience of pain. Phys Ther. 2011;91(5):700–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Vlaeyen JWS, Linton SJ. Fear-avoidance and its consequences in chronic musculoskeletal pain: a state of the art. Pain. 2000;85(3):317–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Denison E, Åsenlöf P, Lindberg P. Self-efficacy, fear avoidance, and pain intensity as predictors of disability in subacute and chronic musculoskeletal pain patients in primary health care. Pain. 2004;111(3):245–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Soliman ES, Shousha TM, Alayat MS. The effect of pain severity on postural stability and dynamic limits of stability in chronic low back pain. J Back Musculoskelet Rehabil. 2017;30(5):1023–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Sánchez-Herán Á, Agudo-Carmona D, Ferrer-Peña R, López-de-Uralde-Villanueva I, Gil-Martínez A, Paris-Alemany A, et al. Postural Stability in Osteoarthritis of the knee and hip: analysis of Association with Pain Catastrophizing and Fear-Avoidance Beliefs. Pm r. 2016;8(7):618–28.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Zhang C, Zhang Z, Li Y, Feng C, Meng H, Gao Y, et al. Pain Catastrophizing is related to Static Postural Control Impairment in patients with nonspecific chronic low back Pain: a cross-sectional study. Pain Res Manag. 2020;2020:9629526.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Ozcan Kahraman B, Kahraman T, Kalemci O, Salik Sengul Y. Gender differences in postural control in people with nonspecific chronic low back pain. Gait Posture. 2018;64:147–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. De Vet HCW. Measurement in medicine: a practical guide. New York: Cambridge University Press;: Cambridge; 2011.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  30. Carlson KD, Herdman AO. Understanding the impact of convergent validity on research results. Organ Res Methods. 2010;15(1):17–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Ljungvall H, Lind A-L, Zetterberg H, Wagner S, Ekselius L, Karlsten R, et al. U-PAIN cohort study among patients with chronic pain in specialised pain care: a feasibility study. BMJ Open. 2022;12(12):e062265.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Mokkink LB, Prinsen CAC, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Bouter LM, de Vet HC et al. COSMIN Study Design checklist for Patient-reported outcome measurement instruments [Internet]. Amsterdam; 2019. Version July 2019. [cited 2021 Aug 16]. Available from: https://www.cosmin.nl/wp-content/uploads/COSMIN-study-designing-checklist_final.pdf#.

  33. Bergström M, Lenholm E, Franzén E. Translation and validation of the swedish version of the mini-BESTest in subjects with Parkinson’s disease or stroke: a pilot study. Physiother Theory Pract. 2012;28(7):509–14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Phyu SN, Wanpen S, Chatchawan U. Responsiveness of the Mini-Balance evaluation system test in type 2 Diabetic patients with Peripheral Neuropathy. J Multidiscip Healthc. 2022;15:3015–28.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Godi M, Franchignoni F, Caligari M, Giordano A, Turcato AM, Nardone A. Comparison of reliability, validity, and responsiveness of the mini-BESTest and Berg Balance Scale in patients with balance disorders. Phys Ther. 2013;93(2):158–67.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Godi M, Arcolin I, Giardini M, Corna S, Schieppati M. Responsiveness and minimal clinically important difference of the Mini-BESTest in patients with Parkinson’s disease. Gait Posture. 2020;80:14–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Beauchamp MK, Niebuhr R, Roche P, Kirkwood R, Sibley KM. A prospective study to establish the minimal clinically important difference of the Mini-BESTest in individuals with stroke. Clin Rehabil. 2021;35(8):1207–15.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Löfgren N, Lenholm E, Conradsson D, Ståhle A, Franzén E. The Mini-BESTest–a clinically reproducible tool for balance evaluations in mild to moderate Parkinson’s disease? BMC Neurol. 2014;14:235.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Amatachaya S, Kwanmongkolthong M, Thongjumroon A, Boonpew N, Pt B, Amatachaya P, Me P, Saensook WPTP, et al. Influence of timing protocols and distance covered on the outcomes of the 10-meter walk test. Physiother Theory Pract. 2020;36(12):1348–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Evensen NM, Kvåle A, Braekken IH. Reliability of the timed up and go test and Ten-Metre timed Walk test in pregnant women with pelvic Girdle Pain. Physiother Res Int. 2015;20(3):158–65.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Peters DM, Fritz SL, Krotish DE. Assessing the reliability and validity of a shorter walk test compared with the 10-Meter walk test for measurements of gait speed in healthy, older adults. J Geriatr Phys Ther. 2013;36(1):24–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Perera S, Mody SH, Woodman RC, Studenski SA. Meaningful change and responsiveness in common physical performance measures in older adults. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2006;54(5):743–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Tilson JK, Sullivan KJ, Cen SY, Rose DK, Koradia CH, Azen SP, et al. Meaningful gait speed improvement during the first 60 days poststroke: minimal clinically important difference. Phys Ther. 2010;90(2):196–208.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. Cleeland CS, Ryan KM. Pain assessment: global use of the brief Pain Inventory. Ann Acad Med Singap. 1994;23(2):129–38.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Cleeland CS. The Brief Pain Inventory - User Guide [Internet] Houston: University of Texas MD Anderson Web site; 2009. [cited 2021 Aug 10]. Available from: https://www.mdanderson.org/documents/Departments-and-Divisions/Symptom-Research/BPI_UserGuide.pdf#.

  46. Jumbo SU, MacDermid JC, Kalu ME, Packham TL, Athwal GS, Faber KJ. Measurement Properties of the brief Pain Inventory-Short Form (BPI-SF) and revised short McGill Pain Questionnaire Version-2 (SF-MPQ-2) in Pain-related Musculoskeletal Conditions: a systematic review. Clin J Pain. 2021;37(6):454–74.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Tan G, Jensen MP, Thornby JI, Shanti BF. Validation of the brief Pain Inventory for chronic nonmalignant pain. J Pain. 2004;5(2):133–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Lapane KL, Quilliam BJ, Benson C, Chow W, Kim M. One, two, or three? Constructs of the brief pain inventory among patients with non-cancer pain in the outpatient setting. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2014;47(2):325–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Mease PJ, Spaeth M, Clauw DJ, Arnold LM, Bradley LA, Russell IJ, et al. Estimation of minimum clinically important difference for pain in fibromyalgia. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2011;63(6):821–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Woby SR, Roach NK, Urmston M, Watson PJ. Psychometric properties of the TSK-11: a shortened version of the Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia. Pain. 2005;117(1–2):137–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Roelofs J, Sluiter JK, Frings-Dresen MH, Goossens M, Thibault P, Boersma K, et al. Fear of movement and (re)injury in chronic musculoskeletal pain: evidence for an invariant two-factor model of the Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia across pain diagnoses and dutch, swedish, and canadian samples. Pain. 2007;131(1–2):181–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Larsson C, Hansson EE, Sundquist K, Jakobsson U. Psychometric properties of the Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia (TSK-11) among older people with chronic pain. Physiother Theory Pract. 2014;30(6):421–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Sullivan MJL, Bishop SR, Pivik J. The Pain Catastrophizing Scale: Development and Validation. Psychol Assess. 1995;7(4):524–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Wheeler CHB, Williams ACC, Morley SJ. Meta-analysis of the psychometric properties of the Pain Catastrophizing Scale and associations with participant characteristics. Pain. 2019;160(9):1946–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Kemani MK, Grimby-Ekman A, Lundgren J, Sullivan M, Lundberg M. Factor structure and internal consistency of a swedish version of the Pain Catastrophizing Scale. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2019;63(2):259–66.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Monticone M, Portoghese I, Rocca B, Giordano A, Campagna M, Franchignoni F. Responsiveness and minimal important change of the Pain Catastrophizing Scale in people with chronic low back pain undergoing multidisciplinary rehabilitation. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med. 2022;58(1):68–75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. McHorney CA, Tarlov AR. Individual-patient monitoring in clinical practice: are available health status surveys adequate? Qual Life Res. 1995;4(4):293–307.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Li CH. Confirmatory factor analysis with ordinal data: comparing robust maximum likelihood and diagonally weighted least squares. Behav Res Methods. 2016;48(3):936–49.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Kline RB. Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. 3rd ed. New York: Guilford Press; 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Collier JE. Applied Structural equation modeling using AMOS: Basic to Advanced techniques. Milton: Taylor and Francis; 2020.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  61. Scholtes VA, Terwee CB, Poolman RW. What makes a measurement instrument valid and reliable? Injury. 2011;42(3):236–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Clark DJ. Automaticity of walking: functional significance, mechanisms, measurement and rehabilitation strategies. Front Hum Neurosci. 2015;9:246.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  63. Alsultan F, De Nunzio AM, Rushton A, Heneghan NR, Falla D. Variability of neck and trunk movement during single- and dual-task gait in people with chronic neck pain. Clin Biomech (Bristol Avon). 2020;72:31–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Martín-Martínez JP, Villafaina S, Collado-Mateo D, Fuentes-García JP, Pérez-Gómez J, Gusi N. Impact of cognitive tasks on biomechanical and kinematic parameters of gait in women with fibromyalgia: a cross-sectional study. Physiol Behav. 2020;227:113171.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Hamacher D, Hamacher D, Schega L. A cognitive dual task affects gait variability in patients suffering from chronic low back pain. Exp Brain Res. 2014;232(11):3509–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Sherafat S, Salavati M, Takamjani IE, Akhbari B, Rad SM, Mazaheri M, et al. Effect of dual-tasking on dynamic postural control in individuals with and without nonspecific low back pain. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2014;37(3):170–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Van Daele U, Hagman F, Truijen S, Vorlat P, Van Gheluwe B, Vaes P. Decrease in postural sway and trunk stiffness during cognitive dual-task in nonspecific chronic low back pain patients, performance compared to healthy control subjects. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2010;35(5):583–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Plummer P, Eskes G. Measuring treatment effects on dual-task performance: a framework for research and clinical practice. Front Hum Neurosci. 2015;9:225.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  69. Mantel A, Trapuzzano A, Chizmar S, Haffke L, Dawson N. An investigation of the predictors of comfortable and fast gait speed in Community-Dwelling older adults. J Geriatr Phys Ther. 2019;42(4):E62–e8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Miyata K, Hasegawa S, Iwamoto H, Otani T, Kaizu Y, Shinohara T, et al. Comparing the measurement properties and relationship to gait speed recovery of the mini-balance evaluation Systems Test and the Berg Balance Scale in ambulatory individuals with subacute stroke. Phys Ther Res. 2020;23(1):72–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  71. Sullivan MJ, Thorn B, Haythornthwaite JA, Keefe F, Martin M, Bradley LA, et al. Theoretical perspectives on the relation between catastrophizing and pain. Clin J Pain. 2001;17(1):52–64.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Vlaeyen JWS, Kole-Snijders AMJ, Boeren RGB, van Eek H. Fear of movement/(re)injury in chronic low back pain and its relation to behavioral performance. Pain. 1995;62(3):363–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Lakke SE, Wittink H, Geertzen JH, van der Schans CP, Reneman MF. Factors that affect functional capacity in patients with musculoskeletal pain: a Delphi study among scientists, clinicians, and patients. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2012;93(3):446–57.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Quartana PJ, Campbell CM, Edwards RR. Pain catastrophizing: a critical review. Expert Rev Neurother. 2009;9(5):745–58.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  75. Unver B, Baris RH, Yuksel E, Cekmece S, Kalkan S, Karatosun V. Reliability of 4-meter and 10-meter walk tests after lower extremity surgery. Disabil Rehabil. 2017;39(25):2572–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Tyson S, Connell L. The psychometric properties and clinical utility of measures of walking and mobility in neurological conditions: a systematic review. Clin Rehabil. 2009;23(11):1018–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Hållstam A, Löfgren M, Benson L, Svensén C, Stålnacke BM. Assessment and treatment at a pain clinic: a one-year follow-up of patients with chronic pain. Scand J Pain. 2017;17:233–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We sincerely thank all the participants, as well as the research staff, for their valuable contributions to this research.

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the Swedish Research Council [grant number 2016 − 01582], the Uppsala County Council’s Funds for Clinical Research and Development, and the Swedish state under the agreement between the Swedish government and the county councils, the ALF-agreement.

Open access funding provided by Uppsala University.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Women’s and Children’s Health, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden

    Sofia Wagner, Annika Bring & Pernilla Åsenlöf

Authors
  1. Sofia Wagner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Annika Bring
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Pernilla Åsenlöf
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors were responsible for the conception and design of the study. SW were responsible for drafting the article. PÅ and AB were supervising. PÅ and SW were acquired founding. All authors provided critical revisions of the article and read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pernilla Åsenlöf.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study was approved by the Swedish Ethical Review Authority’s regional ethics board in Uppsala (EPN Uppsala D-No 2016 − 376, 2020–05283) and complies with the Declaration of Helsinki. For the planning and reporting of the study, the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) checklist was followed. All methods were carried out in accordance with the relevant guidelines and regulations. Written informed consent was obtained from all participants.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Table 1

. Goodness-of-Fit indices for confirmatory factor analyses for the one-factor model for Mini-BESTest with item 13 excluded. Supplementary Table 2. Descriptive statistics for the Mini-BESTest and the 10-meter walk test for the group with a complete Mini-BESTest and the group with non-performers.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wagner, S., Bring, A. & Åsenlöf, P. Construct validity of the Mini-BESTest in individuals with chronic pain in specialized pain care. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 24, 391 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-023-06504-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-023-06504-9

Keywords

BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders

ISSN: 1471-2474

Contact us