The Balance Outcome Measure for Elder Rehabilitation (BOOMER): Difference between revisions
Lauren Lopez (talk | contribs) mNo edit summary |
Lauren Lopez (talk | contribs) mNo edit summary |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
== Objective == | == Objective == | ||
The Balance Outcome Measure for Elder Rehabilitation (BOOMER) was developed to assist in clinical practice to quantify standing balance.<ref name="haines">Haines T, Kuys SS, Morrison G, Clarke J, Bew P, McPhail S. Development and validation of the balance outcome measure for elder rehabilitation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2007; 88(12): 1614-1621.</ref> The combination of a variety of commonly used, single-item outcome measures makes the BOOMER a highly feasible and applicable tool that is both time and resource efficient<ref name="haines" />. | The Balance Outcome Measure for Elder Rehabilitation (BOOMER) was developed to assist in clinical practice to quantify standing balance.<ref name="haines">Haines T, Kuys SS, Morrison G, Clarke J, Bew P, McPhail S. [https://www.archives-pmr.org/article/S0003-9993(07)01563-8/fulltext Development and validation of the balance outcome measure for elder rehabilitation]. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2007; 88(12): 1614-1621.</ref> The combination of a variety of commonly used, single-item outcome measures makes the BOOMER a highly feasible and applicable tool that is both time and resource efficient<ref name="haines" />. | ||
== Intended Population == | == Intended Population == | ||
| Line 47: | Line 47: | ||
{| class="wikitable" width="500" border="1" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="1" | {| class="wikitable" width="500" border="1" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="1" | ||
|- | |- | ||
| ''' | | '''Test''' | ||
| '''0''' | | '''0''' | ||
| '''1''' | | '''1''' | ||
| Line 54: | Line 54: | ||
| '''4''' | | '''4''' | ||
|- | |- | ||
| Step test ( | | Step test (average number of steps) | ||
| Unable | | Unable | ||
| 0 - 5 | | 0 - 5 | ||
| Line 61: | Line 61: | ||
| >12 | | >12 | ||
|- | |- | ||
| TUG ( | | TUG (seconds) | ||
| Unable | | Unable | ||
| ≥ 30<br> | | ≥ 30<br> | ||
| Line 68: | Line 68: | ||
| <10 | | <10 | ||
|- | |- | ||
| FR ( | | FR (centimetres) | ||
| 0 | | 0 | ||
| 1 - 15 | | 1 - 15 | ||
| Line 75: | Line 75: | ||
| > 30 | | > 30 | ||
|- | |- | ||
| | | Timed Static Stance (seconds) | ||
| Unable | | Unable | ||
| 0 - 30 | | 0 - 30 | ||
| Line 87: | Line 87: | ||
=== Validity === | === Validity === | ||
==== Concurrent validity | ==== Concurrent validity ==== | ||
The BOOMER correlates with | The BOOMER correlates with Functional Independence Measure and Modified Elderly Mobility Scale<ref name="haines" />. It has shown high correlation with the Berg Balance Scale at both admission (ρ=.91; ''P''<.01) and on discharge (ρ=.68; ''P''<.01) from geriatric rehabilitation units (n=134)<ref name="kuys" />. | ||
==== Construct validity ==== | |||
Another study<ref>Kuys SS, Crouch T, Dolecka UE, Steel M, Low Choy NL. [https://pnz.org.nz/journal Use and validation of the Balance Outcome Measure for Elder Rehabilitation in acute care]. New Zealand Journal of Physiotherapy. 2014; 42(1): 16-21. Accessed 23 August 2018.</ref> showed that BOOMER scores highly associated with BBS scores (r = .93, p < 0.001), as well as with raw scores on the de Morton Mobility Index (r = .89, p < 0.001). The same study showed only moderate associations with perceived confidence on the Activities-specific Balance Confidence scale (r > .52, p < 0.001). | |||
=== Responsiveness === | === Responsiveness === | ||
A minimum clinically significant change in the BOOMER is 3 points over | A minimum clinically significant change in the BOOMER is 3 points over its 17-point scale range<ref name="haines" />. Change scores between admission and discharge for the BOOMER and BBS displayed moderate correlation (ρ=.55; ''P''<.01), while those between the BOOMER and gait speed displayed only fair correlation (ρ=.33 ''P''<.01)<ref name="kuys" />. | ||
== References == | == References == | ||
Revision as of 06:58, 23 August 2018
Original Editor - Ben Kasehagen
Top Contributors - Lauren Lopez, Ben Kasehagen, Lucinda hampton, Evan Thomas, Kim Jackson, 127.0.0.1, Admin, Scott Buxton, WikiSysop, Claire Knott and Amrita Patro
Objective[edit | edit source]
The Balance Outcome Measure for Elder Rehabilitation (BOOMER) was developed to assist in clinical practice to quantify standing balance.[1] The combination of a variety of commonly used, single-item outcome measures makes the BOOMER a highly feasible and applicable tool that is both time and resource efficient[1].
Intended Population[edit | edit source]
Older adults with deficiencies in standing balance.[2]
Method of Use[edit | edit source]
Instructions[edit | edit source]
The BOOMER consists of the following four tests:
| Test | Description |
|---|---|
| Step Test | One foot is repeatedly placed on top of a 7.5cm step and returned back down to the ground
as many times as able in 15 sec. The average between legs is then calculated for scoring. |
| Timed Up and Go | From a seated position, individual stands, walks 3m, turns 180°, walks 3m back to chair and sits
down with back resting against backrest. |
| Functional Reach | Individual reaches as far forward as possible in a standing position without losing balance. |
| Timed Static Stance | Standing with feet together and eyes closed. |
The four components of the BOOMER are performed in one session. Areas of interest are identified with treatment continued as appropriate.
Scoring[edit | edit source]
An individual's performance on each measure will be converted to a 5-point ordinal scale. The scale ranges from 0 (unable to perform the test (or 0 on FR)) to 4 (excellent) with a maximum score of 16.[2]
Table: BOOMER scoring[2]
| Test | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
| Step test (average number of steps) | Unable | 0 - 5 | 5 - 8 | 8 - 12 | >12 |
| TUG (seconds) | Unable | ≥ 30 |
29 - 20 | 19 - 10 | <10 |
| FR (centimetres) | 0 | 1 - 15 | 16 - 20 | 21 - 30 | > 30 |
| Timed Static Stance (seconds) | Unable | 0 - 30 | 30 - 60 | 60 - <90 | 90 |
Evidence[edit | edit source]
Validity[edit | edit source]
Concurrent validity[edit | edit source]
The BOOMER correlates with Functional Independence Measure and Modified Elderly Mobility Scale[1]. It has shown high correlation with the Berg Balance Scale at both admission (ρ=.91; P<.01) and on discharge (ρ=.68; P<.01) from geriatric rehabilitation units (n=134)[2].
Construct validity[edit | edit source]
Another study[3] showed that BOOMER scores highly associated with BBS scores (r = .93, p < 0.001), as well as with raw scores on the de Morton Mobility Index (r = .89, p < 0.001). The same study showed only moderate associations with perceived confidence on the Activities-specific Balance Confidence scale (r > .52, p < 0.001).
Responsiveness[edit | edit source]
A minimum clinically significant change in the BOOMER is 3 points over its 17-point scale range[1]. Change scores between admission and discharge for the BOOMER and BBS displayed moderate correlation (ρ=.55; P<.01), while those between the BOOMER and gait speed displayed only fair correlation (ρ=.33 P<.01)[2].
References[edit | edit source]
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 Haines T, Kuys SS, Morrison G, Clarke J, Bew P, McPhail S. Development and validation of the balance outcome measure for elder rehabilitation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2007; 88(12): 1614-1621.
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 Kuys SS, Morrison G, Bew, PG, Clarke J, Haines TP. Further validation of the balance outcome measure for elder rehabilitation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2011; 92(1):101-105.
- ↑ Kuys SS, Crouch T, Dolecka UE, Steel M, Low Choy NL. Use and validation of the Balance Outcome Measure for Elder Rehabilitation in acute care. New Zealand Journal of Physiotherapy. 2014; 42(1): 16-21. Accessed 23 August 2018.
