Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Hierarchical Assessment of Balance and Mobility

Deutsche Übersetzung und interkulturelle Adaptation

Hierarchical assessment of balance and mobility

German translation and cross-cultural adaptation

  • Originalien
  • Published:
Zeitschrift für Gerontologie und Geriatrie Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Zusammenfassung

Hintergrund

Das Hierarchical Assessment of Balance and Mobility (HABAM) ist ein international etablierter klinischer Mobilitätstest mit guten psychometrischen Eigenschaften zur einfachen Erfassung und zur Verlaufsdarstellung der Mobilität geriatrischer Patienten. Ziele der vorliegenden Studie waren die deutsche Übersetzung und die interkulturelle Adaptation der englischen Originalversion des HABAM sowie eine erste Einschätzung der Praktikabilität und Konstruktvalidität.

Material und Methoden

Das HABAM wurde, internationalen Leitlinien folgend, ins Deutsche übersetzt. Eine präfinale Testversion wurde in 2 geriatrischen Kliniken über einen Zeitraum von 5 Wochen von Physiotherapeuten klinisch erprobt. Zur finalen Überarbeitung des HABAM wurden in strukturierter Weise vertiefte Rückmeldungen von den 7 Therapeuten eingeholt, die das HABAM am häufigsten eingesetzt hatten.

Ergebnisse

Das HABAM wurde von 18 Therapeuten bei 47 älteren Patienten in der Eintrittsuntersuchung eingesetzt. Es zeigten sich eine gute Verständlichkeit der übersetzten Instruktionen und Items, aber Probleme bei der Durchführung und Dokumentation. Entsprechende Modifikationen führten zur finalen deutschen HABAM-Version. Die HABAM-Erhebungen dauerten bei 85 % der Patienten ≤ 10 min und korrelierten mit dem Tinetti-Test (rs = 0,71) und dem Barthel-Index (rs = 0,68).

Schlussfolgerung

Eine deutsche HABAM-Version steht nun für die klinische Anwendung zur Verfügung. Die Ergebnisse der ersten psychometrischen Prüfung weisen auf eine potenziell gute Praktikabilität und hinreichende Konstruktvalidität hin. Eine ausführliche Überprüfung der Gütekriterien steht aus.

Abstract

Background

The hierarchical assessment of balance and mobility (HABAM) is an internationally established clinical mobility test which has good psychometric properties, allows an easy assessment of mobility and the graphical illustration of change over time in geriatric patients. The aims of this study were the translation and cross-cultural adaptation of the English original HABAM into the German language as well as a preliminary analysis of the practicability and construct validity of the HABAM.

Material and methods

The HABAM was translated into German following international guidelines. A prefinal version was clinically tested by physiotherapists in two geriatric hospitals over a period of 5 weeks. In order to make a final revision of the German HABAM version, structured in-depth feedback was obtained from the seven therapists who had used the HABAM most often.

Results

A total of 18 physiotherapists used the HABAM for 47 elderly inpatients for the initial assessment. The translated items and instructions seemed comprehensible but problems occurred concerning the conducting and documentation of the HABAM. Modifications led to the final German HABAM version and 85 % of the HABAM assessments were performed within ≤ 10 min. There was a correlation of rs= 0.71 with the Tinetti test and of rs = 0.68 with the Barthel index.

Conclusion

A German HABAM version is now accessible for use in clinical practice. The results of a preliminary psychometric analysis indicate a potentially good practicability and sufficient construct validity. A comprehensive analysis of psychometric properties is pending.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Abb. 1
Abb. 2

Literatur

  1. Jarrett PG, Rockwood K, Carver D, Stolee P, Cosway S (1995) Illness presentation in elderly patients. Arch Intern Med 155:1060–1064

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Davis DHJ, Rockwood MRH, Mitnitski AB, Rockwood K (2011) Impairments in mobility and balance in relation to frailty. Arch Gerontol Geriatr 53:79–83

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Fallah N, Mitnitski A, Searle SD, Gahbauer EA, Gill TM, Rockwood K (2011) Transitions in frailty status in older adults in relation to mobility: a multistate modeling approach employing a deficit count. J Am Geriatr Soc 59:524–529

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Inouye SK, Studenski S, Tinetti ME, Kuchel GA (2007) Geriatric syndromes: clinical, research, and policy implications of a core geriatric concept. J Am Geriatr Soc 55:780–791

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Brown CJ, Flood KL (2013) Mobility limitation in the older patient: a clinical review. JAMA 310:1168–1177

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Fisher SR, Kuo Y, Graham JE, Ottenbacher KJ, Ostir GV (2010) Early ambulation and length of stay in older adults hospitalized for acute illness. Arch Intern Med 170:1942–1943

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Fisher SR, Kuo Y, Sharma G et al (2013) Mobility after Hospital Discharge as a Marker for 30-Day Readmission. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 68:805–810

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Hubbard RE, Eeles EMP, Rockwood MRH et al (2011) Assessing balance and mobility to track illness and recovery in older inpatients. J Gen Intern Med 26:1471–1478

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Hirvensalo M, Rantanen T, Heikkinen E (2000) Mobility difficulties and physical activity as predictors of mortality and loss of independence in the community-living older population. J Am Geriatr Soc 48:493–498

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Ostir GV, Berges IM, Kuo Y, Goodwin JS, Fisher SR, Guralnik JM (2013) Mobility activity and its value as a prognostic indicator of survival in hospitalized older adults. J Am Geriatr Soc 61:551–557

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Fisher SR, Goodwin JS, Protas EJ et al (2011) Ambulatory activity of older adults hospitalized with acute medical illness. J Am Geriatr Soc 59:91–95

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Podsiadlo D, Richardson S (1991) The timed „Up & Go“: a test of basic functional mobility for frail elderly persons. J Am Geriatr Soc 39:142–148

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Guralnik JM, Simonsick EM, Ferrucci L et al (1994) A short physical performance battery assessing lower extremity function: association with self-reported disability and prediction of mortality and nursing home admission. J Gerontol 49:85–94

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Gan N, Large J, Basic D, Jennings N (2006) The Timed Up and Go Test does not predict length of stay on an acute geriatric ward. Aust J Physiother 52:141–144

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Lindsay R, James EL, Kippen S (2004) The Timed Up and Go Test: unable to predict falls on the acute medical ward. Aust J Physiother 50:249–251

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Marburger C, Jamour M, Rükgauer M, Zeyfang A, Runge M (2008) KODAS – Instrument zur Erfassung von Qualitätsmerkmalen. Geriatr J 1:31–36

    Google Scholar 

  17. MacKnight C, Rockwood K (1995) A hierarchical assessment of balance and mobility. Age Ageing 24:126–130

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. MacKnight C, Rockwood K (1996) Mobility and balance in the elderly: a guide to bedside assessment. Postgrad Med 99:269–271, 275–276

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. MacKnight C, Sibley A, Rockwood K (2002) The sensibility of bedside tests of balance and mobility. Geriatrics Today 5:140–143

    Google Scholar 

  20. Hubbard RE, Eeles E, Rockwood K (2010) Impaired mobility. In: Fillit H, Rockwood K, Woodhouse KW, Brocklehurst JC (Hrsg) Brocklehurstʼs textbook of geriatric medicine and gerontology. Saunders/Elsevier, Philadelphia, S 886–893

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  21. Belvedere SL, de Morton NA(2010) Application of Rasch analysis in health care is increasing and is applied for variable reasons in mobility instruments. J Clin Epidemiol 63:1287–1297

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. MacKnight C, Rockwood K (2000) Rasch analysis of the hierarchical assessment of balance and mobility (HABAM). J Clin Epidemiol 53:1242–1247

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Rockwood K, Rockwood MRH, Andrew MK, Mitnitski A (2008) Reliability of the hierarchical assessment of balance and mobility in frail older adults. J Am Geriatr Soc 56:1213–1217

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. de Morton NA, Davidson M, Keating J (2010) Validity, responsiveness and the minimal clinically important difference for the de Morton Mobility Index (DEMMI) in an older acute medical population. BMC Geriatr 10:72

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. de Morton NA, Berlowitz DJ, Keating JL (2008) A systematic review of mobility instruments and their measurement properties for older acute medical patients. Health Qual Life Outcomes 6:44 (15 pages)

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Beaton D, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, Ferraz M (1998) Recommendations for the cross-cultural adaptation of health status measures. American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons & Institute, Illinois

    Google Scholar 

  27. Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, Ferraz MB (2000) Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine 25:3186–3191

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Graubner B (2014) ICD-10-GM 2015 Systematisches Verzeichnis. Internationale statistische Klassifikation der Krankheiten und verwandter Gesundheitsprobleme. Deutscher Ärzte-Verlag, Köln

    Google Scholar 

  29. Mahoney FI, Barthel DW (1965) Functional Evaluation: the Barthel Index. Md State Med J 14:61–65

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Tinetti ME (1986) Performance-oriented assessment of mobility problems in elderly patients. J Am Geriatr Soc 34:119–126

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Marks D (2006) Sturzrisiko erkennen (Assessment: Tinetti-Test). Physiopraxis 4:32–33

    Google Scholar 

  32. Glaesmer H, Künstler J, Reuter W (2003) Verbesserung von grundlegenden Alltagsfunktionen, Mobilität und kognitiver Leistungsfähigkeit durch Behandlung in einer geriatrischen Tagesklinik. Z Gerontol Geriatr 36:475–483

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Altman DG, Machin D, Bryant TN, Gardner MJ (2000) Statistics with confidence. Confidence intervals and statistical guidelines. BMJ Books, Milton Keyes

    Google Scholar 

  34. de Morton NA, Davidson M, Keating JL (2008) The de Morton Mobility Index (DEMMI): an essential health index for an ageing world. Health Qual Life Outcomes 6:63

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Berg K, Wood-Dauphinee S, Williams J, Gayton G (1989) Measuring balance in the elderly: preliminary development of an instrument. Physiother Can 41:304–311

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Swinkels R, van Peppen R, Wittink H, Custers J, Beurskens A (2011) Current use and barriers and facilitators for implementation of standardised measures in physical therapy in the Netherlands. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 12:106

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Stevens AJ, Beurskens AJ (2010) Implementation of measurement instruments in physical therapist practice: development of a tailored strategy. Phys Ther 90:953–961

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Braun T, Schulz R, Hoffmann M et al (2015) German version of the de Morton Mobility Index. First clinical results from the process of the cross-cultural adaptation. Z Gerontol Geriatr 48:154–163

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Thomas JI, Lane JV (2005) A pilot study to explore the predictive validity of 4 measures of falls risk in frail elderly patients. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 86:1636–1640

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Sainsbury A, Seebass G, Bansal A, Young JB (2005) Reliability of the Barthel Index when used with older people. Age Ageing 34:228–232

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Anthoine E, Moret L, Regnault A, Sébille V, Hardouin J (2014) Sample size used to validate a scale: a review of publications on newly-developed patient reported outcomes measures. Health Qual Life Outcomes 12:1987

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL et al (2010) The COSMIN study reached international consensus on taxonomy, terminology, and definitions of measurement properties for health-related patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol 63:737–745

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Danksagung

Wir danken allen beteiligten Physiotherapeutinnen und Therapeuten der beteiligten Kliniken. Prof. Kenneth Rockwood danken wir für die konstruktive und intensive Begleitung der Übersetzung und Adaptation des HABAM. Für die Unterstützung im Übersetzungsprozess danken wir Rachel Seidenglanz, Caitlin Forgione und Robert Stemmermann.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department für Angewandte Gesundheitswissenschaften, Studienbereich Physiotherapie, Hochschule für Gesundheit, Gesundheitscampus 6–8, 44801, Bochum, Deutschland

    Tobias Braun, Alina Rieckmann, Christian Grüneberg & Christian Thiel

  2. Rehaklinik Zihlschlacht, Hauptstr. 2–4, 8588, Zihlschlacht, Schweiz

    Detlef Marks

Authors
  1. Tobias Braun
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Alina Rieckmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Christian Grüneberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Detlef Marks
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Christian Thiel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tobias Braun.

Ethics declarations

Interessenkonflikt

T. Braun, A. Rieckmann, C. Grüneberg, D. Marks und C. Thiel geben an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.

Das HABAM wurde im Rahmen der physiotherapeutischen Routineversorgung über einen begrenzten Zeitraum angewendet. Die Studie wurde von der Ethikkommission des Deutschen Verbands für Physiotherapie (Vorlagennummer: 2014-05) geprüft und befürwortet.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Braun, T., Rieckmann, A., Grüneberg, C. et al. Hierarchical Assessment of Balance and Mobility. Z Gerontol Geriat 49, 386–397 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00391-016-1026-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00391-016-1026-0

Schlüsselwörter

Keywords

Search

Navigation