scala berg

R E S E A R C H
R E P O R T
Pediatric Balance Scale: A Modified
Version of the Berg Balance Scale
for the School-Age Child with Mild
to Moderate Motor Impairment
Mary Rose Franjoine, MS, PT, PCS, Joan S. Gunther, PhD, PT, and Mary Jean Taylor, MA, PT, PCS
Physical Therapy Program, Daemen College, Amherst, New York
Purpose: The Pediatric Balance Scale (PBS), a modification of Berg’s Balance Scale, was developed as a balance
measure for school-age children with mild to moderate motor impairments. The purpose of this study was to
determine the test-retest and interrater reliability of the PBS. Methods: To determine test-retest reliability, 20
children (aged five to 15 years) with known balance impairments were tested by one examiner on the PBS. Ten
pediatric physical therapists independently scored 10 randomly selected videotaped test sessions. Results:
There was no significant difference in total test scores [intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) model 3,1 ⫽
0.998] or individual items (Kappa Coefficients, k ⫽ 0.87 to 1.0; Spearman Rank Correlation Coefficients, r ⫽
0.89 to 1.0) measured by one therapist on two occasions. No significant difference among ratings by different
physical therapists was found on the PBS for total test score (ICC 3,1 ⫽ 0.997). Conclusion: The PBS has been
demonstrated to have good test-retest and interrater reliability when used with school-age children with mild
to moderate motor impairments. (Pediatr Phys Ther 2003;15:114 –128) Key words: child, posture, equilibrium,
cerebral palsy, spinal dysraphism, mental retardation, activities of daily living, reproducibility of results,
physical therapy techniques/methods
INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE
Examination of balance is an important element of a
physical therapy evaluation for a school-age child. The clinician must predict the ability of the child to safely and
independently function in a variety of environments (ie,
home, school, and community). Valid and reliable functional balance measures are of critical importance if the
pediatric physical therapist is to justify that intervention is
warranted and demonstrate that improved balance function has occurred as a result of intervention.
Traditionally, pediatric physical therapists have examined balance through the observation of the underlying
elements of the balance response, timed measures of static
0898-5669/03/1502-0114
Pediatric Physical Therapy
Copyright © 2003 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Inc.
Address correspondence to: Mary Rose Franjoine, MS, PT, PCS, Physical
Therapy Program, Daemen College, 4380 Main St., Amherst, NY 14226.
Email: mfranjoi@daemen.edu
DOI: 10.1097/01.PEP.0000068117.48023.18
114
Franjoine et al
postures, and standardized developmental measures of
gross motor function.1– 4 The ability to describe the extent
to which a child demonstrates righting reactions, protective responses, and equilibrium reactions in response to a
therapist generated perturbation formed the foundation of
the “classic” balance assessment.1,2 Traditional balance assessment also included timed measures of static sitting and
standing balance including single limb stance.4 Standardized examination tools currently utilized by pediatric physical therapists for school-age children with mild to moderate motor impairment include the Bruininks-Oseretsky
Test of Motor Proficiency,5 the Peabody Developmental
Motor Scale,6 and the Gross Motor Function Measure.7 In
addition, clinicians have developed their own non-standardized measures in an attempt to obtain information relative to the quality of performance during basic and instrumental activities of daily living, and higher-level gross
motor tasks.4 The standardized and non-standardized measures that currently exist provide clinicians with valuable
information, but may not fully meet their needs to assess a
child’s functional balance abilities.
Functional balance, for the purpose of this study,
has been defined as the element(s) of postural control
Pediatric Physical Therapy
that allow a child to safely perform everyday tasks. A
child of school age is expected to function independently within his/her home and school environment
when performing self-help (basic activities of daily living), locomotor (mobility), and gross motor activities,
including recreational activities/play (instrumental activities of daily living). As the child approaches adolescence and young adulthood increased proficiency in basic and instrumental activities of daily living is
anticipated. Balance, the ability to maintain a state of
equilibrium, is one of the critical underlying elements of
movement that facilitates the performance of functional
skills. Other critical elements for successful function
include cognition, vision, vestibular function, muscle
strength, and range of motion. The physical therapist
must determine if the child possesses adequate functional balance to safely meet the demands of everyday
life at home, in school, and within the community.
School-age children with mild to moderate motor impairment pose unique challenges for the pediatric physical
therapist. Generally, they have acquired basic motor abilities. At first glance, these children appear to possess the
motor skills necessary for successful function within their
homes, schools, and communities. They are able to ambulate independently with or without assistive devices. It is
our observation, however, that a closer examination of
their abilities reveals that they have a limited movement
repertoire that allows for minimal variation of movement
strategies within a given environment. Examples of such
limitations include the ability to turn only in one direction
in preparation to sit in a chair, or the ability to initiate
single limb stance with only one limb in preparation for
stepping onto a curb. Strong preferences or limited options
may create movement strategies that are unique to given
environments and appear slow, precarious, or impulsive.
Children with mild to moderate motor impairment may
appear to lack endurance for long duration/distance activities, such as standing still while waiting in a line. Standardized tests, such as the Bruininks-Oseretsky Test of Motor
Proficiency,5 often reveal a significant delay in motor function for children with mild to moderate impairments compared to children of the same chronological age without
impairments.
Current standardized pediatric clinical measures may
not provide the clinician with adequate information to
fully assess a child with mild to moderate motor impairment’s functional balance. A review of balance in the literature suggested that the Berg Balance Scale (BBS) might be
useful with the school-age population.8 –12 The 14 items
contained within BBS (see Table 1) assess many of the
functional activities a child must perform to safely and
independently function within his/her home, school, or
community: sitting balance, standing balance, sit to stand/
stand to sit, transfers, stepping, reaching forward, reaching
to the floor, turning, and stepping on and off of an elevated
surface. The test item “forward reaching” is conceptually
similar to “functional reach,” which has been studied in the
pediatric population.13 The purpose of this study was
Pediatric Physical Therapy
threefold: 1) to pilot test BBS for use with children; 2) to
refine the instrument as needed for use with children; and
3) to determine test-retest and interrater reliability of the
Balance Scale for school-age children with mild to moderate motor impairments.
The BBS
The BBS has undergone extensive reliability and
validity testing within the geriatric patient population.8,10 The intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) for
interrater and test-retest reliability for the test as a whole
were 0.98 and 0.99, respectively. The ICC for individual
test items ranged from 0.71 to 0.99. Berg has suggested
that for older persons the Balance Scale is an appropriate
screening tool with respect to functional balance, is predictive of future dysfunction, is sensitive to changes in
functional balance skills, and may be used to monitor a
patient’s status over time.9,10 The BBS is easy to administer, does not require specialized equipment, and can be
completed in ⬍20 minutes. A 0 to 4 grading scale provides a quantitative and qualitative measure of performance. An overall numeric score is obtained at the conclusion of testing.10
METHODS
Pilot Testing of the BBS with Children
The BBS (see Table 1) was administered to 13 children
who were typically developing who ranged in age from four
to 12 years, on two separate occasions scheduled one week
apart. A physical therapist (M.R.F.), a clinical specialist in
pediatric physical therapy with 13 years of experience in
school-based therapy, administered the BBS per test protocol to all 13 participants during both test sessions. The
same test site was used for both test sessions. Preliminary
results revealed unsatisfactory test-retest reliability. Formal statistical analysis of this data could not be completed
as nine of the 13 participants (69%) had difficulty completing two or more of the test items that required prolonged
maintenance of static postures. Marked variation within
individual participant’s performance was noted from the
initial test session to the follow-up test session with total
test scores (TTS) decreasing by greater than six points in
eight of the 13 (62%) participants. Issues associated with
typical child behavior, attention span and following directions were consistently encountered throughout test administration during both sessions.
On the basis of the results of pilot testing of the BBS
with children who were typically developing, the 14 items
contained within Berg’s scale were modified to create a
pediatric version of this tool. The modifications were minor and included: 1) reordering of test items; 2) reducing
time standards for maintenance of static postures; and 3)
clarifying directions. Test items within the BBS are organized by increasing difficulty of task (see Table 1). In the
pediatric version, items were reordered into functional sequences with novel tasks placed at the end of the scale (see
Pediatric Balance Scale
115
Table 1). Time standards for BBS item 2, “standing unsupported,” item 3, “sitting unsupported,” and item 7, “standing unsupported feet together” were decreased to 30 seconds. In the BBS, a maximal score of “4” is earned in items
2 and 3 by maintaining a static posture for two minutes and
in item 7 by maintaining a static posture for one minute.
The scoring criteria to earn a “0” to “3” for each of these
items were also modified. Directions and suggested equipment were modified throughout the balance scale. Examples include the use of footprints or a taped line to facilitate
task completion in BBS items 2, 6 –10, 13, and 14. Equipment modification also included the use a child-size bench
for BBS items 3–5, the use of a chalkboard eraser for BBS
item 8, the use of a flash card for BBS item 10, and the use
of a 6-inch step for BBS item 12. Care was taken to ensure
that the intent of the items was not altered by the modifications. The Pediatric Balance Scale (PBS) and instructions
for administration are presented in the Appendix.
Pilot Testing of the PBS with Children
The PBS, the revised version of the BBS, was administered per the protocol detailed in the Appendix, to 40 children aged five to seven years who were developing typically. They were recruited from two local elementary
schools and participated in two separate test sessions
scheduled two weeks apart for the purpose of determining
test-retest reliability. Two entry-level physical therapy students (K.K. and J.L.) under the advisement of an experienced pediatric physical therapist (S.H.) administered and
scored the test. Before test administration, the clinical specialist in pediatric physical therapy (M.R.F.) who participated in the initial pilot testing of the BBS with children
who were typically developing and in the revision process
to create the PBS, trained the two examiners. They participated in two three-hour training sessions, which concluded one week before their initial data collection session.
Before the examiners completed their training, they demonstrated the ability to accurately administer and score the
PBS for three children of varying ages. Their results revealed no significant difference for total test and retest
scores of the 40 children who were developing typically on
the PBS (p ⫽ 0.2489, Wilcoxon Matched Pairs Signed
Ranks Test; r ⫽ 0.931, Spearman Signed Rank Correlation).14 The test-retest reliability was extremely high (ICC
3,1 ⫽ 0.850).
Reliability of the PBS with Children with Mild to
Moderate Motor Impairment
Sample. Twenty children (12 boys and eight girls)
ranging in age from five to 15 years (mean age nine years)
with mild to moderate motor impairments were recruited
for participation in this study from local elementary
schools (see Table 2). The children were referred for participation in this study by their community-based physical
therapist or their parent(s) or legal guardian(s). Informed
consent was obtained before participation from the child’s
parent(s) or legal guardian(s). A formal medical diagnosis
was not considered essential for inclusion in this study. All
children had a known functional limitation and/or disability that presented, clinically, as an impaired state of balance
(disequilibrium). Etiologies of balance deficits varied
among the participants and included neurological, musculoskeletal, and/or unknown causes (see Table 2). For inclusion in this sample, children had to be able to stand
independently without upper extremity support for four
seconds. All children who participated in this study were
receiving physical therapy at the time of this study, although the amount of intervention varied from educational
consult (one to three times per school year) to intensive
outpatient physical therapy four times per week. (See Table
2) The children’s level of motor impairment also varied.
Descriptions of the children provided by their physical
therapists identified mobility skills, which ranged from independent community ambulation, without external assistive devices, to wheelchair dependent, able to ambulate for
short distances. Children with a mental age of less than two
years, attention deficit disorder, pervasive developmental
delay, or a severe receptive language disorder were excluded from this study. The decision to exclude children
from this study with significant cognitive, attention, behavioral, and/or language disorders was necessary because
these disorders may severely compromise a child’s ability
TABLE 1.
The Berg Balance Scale and the Pediatric Balance Scale
Berg’s Balance Scale Items
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
116
Franjoine et al
Sitting to standing
Standing unsupported
Sitting unsupported
Standing to sitting
Transfers
Standing with eyes closed
Standing with feet together
Reaching forward with outstretched arm
Retrieving object from floor
Turning to look behind
Turning 360 degrees
Placing alternate foot on stool
Standing with one foot in front
Standing on one foot
Pediatric Balance Scale Items
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Sitting to standing
Standing to sitting
Transfers
Standing unsupported
Sitting unsupported
Standing with eyes closed
Standing with feet together
Standing with one foot in front
Standing on one foot
Turning 360 degrees
Turning to look behind
Retrieving object from floor
Placing alternate foot on stool
Reaching forward with outstretched arm
Pediatric Physical Therapy
TABLE 2.
Characteristics of children participating in this study and their total test scores for test and retest
Subject
Age in
Years
Gender
Diagnosis
Physical Therapy
Sessions per Week
Number of Days
Between Test-Retest
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
9
6
7
13
9
13
5
11
7
8
7
8
10
15
14
5
5
14
9
10
Female
Male
Male
Male
Male
Male
Male
Female
Male
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Female
Male
Female
Female
Male
PWS
LD/SI
CP-Hypo
SB
CP-SD
MR
Autistic
CP-SD
MR
CP-ATHD
CP-SD
SP BT
CP-SD
CP-SD
CP-SD
CP-Hemi
LD/SI
CP-SD
CP-SD
CP-Hemi
2
2
2
CONSULT
2
1
2
2
3
4
3
2
4
3
4
2
2
3
2
2
7
14
7
7
7
9
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
10
8
7
10
7
7
7
Functional Level
Mild
Mild
Mild
Mild
Mild
Mild
Mild
Moderate
Mild
Moderate
Mild
Mild
Moderate
Moderate to Severe
Moderate to Severe
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate to Severe
Moderate to Severe
Moderate to Severe
Test Session 1
TTS
Test Session 2
TTS
45
45
46
48
47
52
44
42
49
31
46
52
34
19
8
14
30
13
13
5
45
41
41
48
46
52
46
42
49
31
46
52
34
19
8
14
30
13
13
5
PWS ⫽ Prader-Willi syndrome; LD/SI ⫽ learning disabled and speech-language impaired; MR ⫽ mental retardation; SB ⫽ spina bifida; SP BT ⫽
status post-brain tumor resection; CP ⫽ cerebral palsy; Athd. ⫽ athetoid; Hemi ⫽ hemiplegia; Hypo ⫽ hypotonia; SD ⫽ spastic diplegia; TTS ⫽ total test
score.
to comprehend and comply with test instructions in the
standardized manner necessary for determining the reliability of a tool.
Procedure
Test-retest reliability. The PBS was administered to
all 20 participants following the criteria set forth in Appendix 1. The same physical therapist (M.R.F.) tested all children at both test sessions. She was responsible for direct
interaction with the child, administration of the test, scoring of the test, and ensuring the child’s safety during testing. An assistant was responsible for videotaping. Each
item was scored on the criterion-based 0 to 4 scale. Only
one practice trial per item was allowed. Verbal, visual, and
physical cues were provided to ensure the child understood the requested task. If a child successfully completed
the task (ie, scored a four on the first trial), additional trials
were not administered. It took approximately 15 minutes
to administer and score the PBS.
A variety of test sites within the community were utilized in this study, including the child’s home, school, and
private physical therapy clinic. For each child, the location
of the test site for test one and two were the same. Selection
of the test site was determined according to child, caretaker
or clinician convenience.
All children who participated in the study were scheduled for two test sessions that occurred within 14 days.
Whenever possible, the day of the week and time of day
were kept consistent. Scheduling of the test session was at
the convenience of the child, their parent(s) or legal guardian(s), and/or the facility. Before each test session, a brief
introductory period occurred. This period did not exceed 5
Pediatric Physical Therapy
minutes, and was designed to put the child at ease, allowing the examiner to develop effective communication strategies with the child. The child’s parent(s) and the referring
therapist(s) were invited to attend the test sessions.
Interrater Reliability
Interrater reliability of the PBS for total test score was
determined by using the videotapes created during the test
and retest data collection. Item 14, “forward reach,” was
omitted from videotape analysis because a two-dimensional videotape does not adequately record test performance.13 To ensure a range of performance scores, videotaped test sessions were subdivided into three categories:
TTS ⬍20, TTS ⱖ20 and ⬍40, and TTS ⱖ40. Three to four
videotapes were randomly selected from the tapes in each
category. Ten pediatric physical therapists with a minimum of two years of clinical experience participated in the
interrater reliability phase of this study. All therapists were
volunteers and were recruited from the local therapeutic
community. Their level of pediatric clinical experience varied, ranging from two to 25 years (mean experience 9.4
years). All participating therapists were involved in pediatric clinical practice, although their practice setting varied: school-based, five therapists; outpatient hospital
based, three therapists; outpatient private practice, two
therapists. Each therapist participated in a single, 45minute training session on scoring of the PBS before scoring of the videotapes. The 10 therapists independently
viewed and scored the 10 videotaped test sessions within
one week of their training session.
Pediatric Balance Scale
117
Analysis of Test-Retest Reliability
To determine test-retest reliability of the PBS, scores
on the initial administration of the PBS were compared
with those obtained by the same investigator on the second
administration of the PBS. Scores on the PBS are ordinal
level data; therefore, the nonparametric Wilcoxon
Matched Pairs Signed Ranks Test (alpha ⫽ 0.05) was used
to test for significant difference between total test and total
retest scores. The Kappa statistic, k, was used to evaluate
the agreement of test and retest scores on individual test
items. Each ordinal score from 0 to 4 was considered to be
a category. The kappa corrects for the proportion of agreements between test and retest scores that occur as a result
of chance.15 Correlation coefficients evaluate the correspondence between measurements. The correlation between test and retest scores was determined using the
Spearman Rank Correlation coefficient. This test reflects
the consistency of ranks of data, but not the degree of
similarity between repeated test scores.15 An ICC model 3,1
[ICC(3,1)], which is a reliability coefficient based on an
analysis of variance, was also determined.
Analysis of Interrater Reliability
A single-factor repeated-measure analysis of variance
(alpha ⫽ 0.05) and an ICC(3,1) were used to evaluate
interrater reliability of total test score (exclusive of item
14) on the PBS.
RESULTS
Test-Retest Reliability
The age, gender, diagnosis, and frequency of physical
therapy services as well as time between initial test and
follow-up test are presented in Table 2 for all 20 children
who participated in this study. The distribution of the TTS
for test and retest data is also shown in Table 2. Individual
TTS scores ranged from 5 to 52. The maximal possible TTS
for the PBS is 56. There was no significant difference between total test and retest scores on the PBS (p ⫽ 0.2733,
Wilcoxon Matched Pairs Signed Ranks Test). The test-retest reliability for individual items is presented in Table 3.
k ranged from 0.87 to 1.0. The Spearman Signed Ranked
Correlation, r, ranged from 0.89 to 1.0 for individual items.
Test-retest reliability was extremely high [ICC(3,1) ⫽
0.998].
Interrater Reliability
Ten pediatric physical therapists with varied clinical
background, including years of experience and practice
setting, independently viewed and scored the videotaped
performance of 10 children. The median, mode, and range
of TTS on the PBS for each of the videotaped subjects are
presented in Table 4. The total test scores of the subjects
examined by the 10 therapists ranged from five to 49 with
only a zero-to-two point difference in the total test scores
for each subject. There was no significant difference among
ratings by different physical therapists on PBS TTS (F ⫽
118 Franjoine et al
TABLE 3.
Test retest reliability item analysis
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
PBS Test Items
Kappa
Spearman
Sit-Stand
Stand-Sit
Transfers
Standing Balance
Sitting Balance
Stand Eyes Closed
Stand Feet Together
Stand One Foot in
Front-Tandem
Stand on One Foot
Turn 360 Degrees
Turn and Look Behind
Pick Up Object
Stepping
Functional Reach
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.92
1.00
1.00
0.91
0.92
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.89
1.00
1.00
0.99
0.96
0.87
0.91
0.93
1.00
0.93
1.00
0.95
0.99
1.00
0.93
1.00
1.00
PBS ⫽ pediatric balance scale.
1.574; p ⫽ 0.1087) (see Table 5) and high interrater reliability was demonstrated via an ICC(3,1) ⫽ 0.997.
DISCUSSION
Preliminary testing of the PBS reveals very high testretest and interrater reliability for children five to 15 years of
age with mild to moderate motor impairments. The PBS may
therefore provide clinicians with an additional, reliable means
of assessing a child’s balance. The PBS also affords clinicians a
standardized protocol for test administration and scoring.
Our preliminary work does not specifically address the validity of the PBS as a pediatric balance measure, nor does it
provide normative information. Clinical observations support the content (face) validity of the PBS, because items contained within are routinely performed by children throughout
the day and are frequently examined by pediatric physical
therapist as a component of assessment. Examples of such
tasks include the following: item 1, sit to stand; item 2, stand
to sit; item 10, turning around; item 11, turning to look behind; and item 12, picking an object up from the floor (see the
Appendix and Table 1).
The PBS incorporates a 0 to 4 grading scale to assess
performance. The scoring criterion within an item incorporates qualitative and quantitative measures that allow for
TABLE 4.
Median, mode and range of TTS on PBS for 10 subjects evaluated by 10
pediatric physical therapists
Subjects
Median
Mode
Range
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
5
12
12
27
11
31
49
45
40
43
5
12
12
27
11
31
49
45
40
43
1
0
0
0
0
1
2
1
1
0
Pediatric Physical Therapy
TABLE 5.
Summary table for single-factor repeated-measures analysis of variance: PBS total scores of 10 videotaped subjects scored by 10 pediatric physical
therapists
Subjects (S)
Therapists (T)
Error (S ⫻ T)
df
Sum of Squares
Mean Square
F Value
p Value
9
9
81
24430.800
1.600
8.600
2714.533
0.178
0.106
1.674
0.109
normal variability in performance. This aspect of the grading scale is extremely important, in that variability is a
hallmark of typical motor development. PBS item 8,
“standing one foot in front” (see Appendix) illustrates the
use of qualitative measures, quantitative measures and
variability within the scoring criteria of a single item. This
item examines a child’s ability to assume and maintain a
tandem posture. To obtain the maximal score of four the
child must be able to independently assume a tandem foot
placement position and maintain it for 30 seconds. A lesser
score is earned if the child requires assistance to step, can
maintain a stride stance, but not tandem stance, or maintains the tandem posture for ⬍30 seconds.
Extreme care was taken during the modification process of the BBS to ensure that the intent of the task was not
altered. The reduction in time parameters for static stance
in BBS items 2, 3, and 7 was necessary to ensure the measure of elements of postural control vs attention span. The
reduction to 30 seconds may limit the ability of this tool to
assess the underlying element of muscle strength/postural
stability as a component of functional balance. The time
parameter of 30 seconds was chosen based in part upon
clinical observation during pilot testing of the BBS and
current clinical research in the area of pediatric balance.1,4
Care was taken to limit the effects of learning during
the test-retest phase of this study. Verbal, visual, and tactile
feedback, for each item, was provided during test session
one and two during the practice trial only. Qualitative performance feedback, positive or negative, was not provided
during test administration and/or scoring. Additional feedback relative to individual item(s) or overall task performance was also not provided. At the conclusion of each test
the child received a small toy of their choice as a thank you
for participating. The test and retest session were scheduled at least seven days apart and no longer than 14 days to
minimize the effects of leaning, retention, and developmental-based changes.
The PBS has limitations. For example, the PBS does
not examine a child’s ability to reach overhead. If one considers the strategies that children use as they interact with
their environment, we have observed that items which are
out of reach are frequently overhead. Additionally, the PBS
does not examine issues associated with balance during
locomotion. Inclusion of such items in the PBS would require further investigation.
Several questions remain with respect to the validity
of the PBS. Does the TTS have meaning, and if so, what
does it mean? Do age, height, weight, or gender influence
test performance? Is the PBS sensitive to functional
Pediatric Physical Therapy
change? Is it capable of documenting skill progression or
regression over time? Do the criteria used in the grading
scale reflect different levels of motor proficiency? Are the
scale increments (zero to four) reflective of an overall
change in function? Ongoing investigation with the PBS
includes collection of normative data on children who are
typically developing. Preliminary results suggest that children who are typically developing by the age of seven years
can successfully complete all items within the PBS, obtaining the maximal score of 56. Additionally, three subjects
have been tested using the PBS for a period of two years in
conjunction with their ongoing clinical intervention programs. Trends in their data suggest that the PBS may be
sensitive to changes in a child’s functional balance abilities
over time. It is hoped that the PBS can be used clinically to
screen for functional balance deficits, identify a need for
physical therapy intervention, and to monitor progress
within a therapeutic program.
CONCLUSION
Preliminary data supports the use of the PBS as a reliable measure of functional balance for use with the schoolage child with mild to moderate motor impairment. It is
quick to administer and is easily scored. Total test administration and scoring time is ⬍15 minutes. The PBS does
not require the use of specialized equipment. It provides
clinicians with a standardized format for measurement of
functional balance tasks which are routine components of
physical therapy examination for the school-age child with
mild to moderate motor impairments.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors thank the children, their families, and the
community clinicians who participated in this study. The
authors acknowledge and thank Sharon L. Held, MS, PT,
PCS, Kim Kobes, PT, and Jeff Lach, PT, for their contributions to this study. A special thank you is extended to
Katherine Carey Carney, Theresa Kolodziej, Deborah Scheider, and Jane Montgomery for their assistance and
support.
This study is dedicated in loving memory of Gregory
James Heiser (November 9, 1988 to August 23, 1996).
Sleep well my little angel.
REFERENCES
1. Woollacott MH, ed. Development of Posture and Gait Across the Life
Span, 2nd ed. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press;
1989.
Pediatric Balance Scale
119
2. Fisher AG. Objective assessment of the quality of response during
two equilibrium tasks. Phys Occup Ther Pediatr. 1989;9:57–78.
3. Pountney TE, Mulcahy C, Green E. Early development of postural
control. Phys Canada. 1990;76:700 – 802.
4. Westcott S, Lowes LP. Assessment and treatment of balance dysfunction
in children. (unpublished) 1995; APTA Combined Sections Meeting:
Pediatric Section Pre-Conference Course.
5. Bruininks RH. Bruininks-Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency Manual.
Circle Pines, Minn: American Guidance Services, Inc.; 1978.
6. Folios MR, Fewell RR. Peabody Developmental Motor Scales and Activity Cards. Chicago, Ill: Riverside Publishing Company; 1983.
7. Russell D, Rosenbaum P, et al. Gross Motor Functional Measure Manual, 2nd ed. Hamilton, Ontario, Canada: Gross Motor Measure
Group; 1993.
8. Berg K, Maki BE, Williams JI, et al. Clinical and laboratory measures
of postural balance in an elderly population. Arch Phys Med Rehabil.
1992;73:1073–1080.
120
Franjoine et al
9. Berg K. Balance and its measure in the elderly: a review. Phys Canada
1989;41:240 –246.
10. Berg K, Wood-Dauphinee S, Williams JI, et al. Measuring balance in
the elderly: preliminary development of an instrument. Phys Canada.
1990;41:304 –311.
11. Di Fabio RP, Badke MB. Relationship of sensory organization to balance
function in patients with hemiplegia. Phys Ther. 1990;70:542–548.
12. Shumway-Cook A, Horak FB. Assessing the influence of sensory interaction on balance. Phys Ther. 1986;66:1548 –1550.
13. Donahoe B, Turner D, Worrell T. The use of functional reach as a
measurement of balance in boys and girls without disabilities ages 5
to 15 years. Pediatr Phys Ther. 1994;6:190 –193.
14. Kobes K, Lach J. Determining the Intertester and Intratester Reliability
of the Pediatric Balance Scale for Normal Developing Children. Amherst, NY: Daemen College, 1997. Bachelor’s Thesis.
15. Portney LG, Watkins MP. Foundations of Clinical Research. Norwalk,
Conn: Appleton & Lange; 1993.
Pediatric Physical Therapy
APPENDIX
Pediatric Physical Therapy
Pediatric Balance Scale
121
122
Franjoine et al
Pediatric Physical Therapy
Pediatric Physical Therapy
Pediatric Balance Scale
123
124
Franjoine et al
Pediatric Physical Therapy
Pediatric Physical Therapy
Pediatric Balance Scale
125
126
Franjoine et al
Pediatric Physical Therapy
Pediatric Physical Therapy
Pediatric Balance Scale
127
128
Franjoine et al
Pediatric Physical Therapy