Mini Balance Evaluation Systems Test

1. Abstract

The Mini Balance Evaluation Systems Test (Mini-BESTest) is a standardized, clinician-rated performance instrument designed to evaluate dynamic balance, postural equilibrium, and fall risk across diverse neurological and geriatric populations. Developed by Franco Franchignoni and colleagues in 2010 through rigorous Rasch analysis of Fay Horak’s original 36-item Balance Evaluation Systems Test (BESTest), the Mini-BESTest reduces administration burden while refining the measurement model into a unidimensional metric. The instrument comprises 14 performance items mapped across four distinct physiological subsystems of postural control: Anticipatory Postural Adjustments (Items 1–3), Reactive Postural Control (Items 4–6), Sensory Orientation (Items 7–9), and Dynamic Gait (Items 10–14). Each task is rated on an authentic 3-point ordinal scale ranging from 0 (Severe; unable or requires assistance) through 1 (Moderate; able with difficulty / abnormal response) to 2 (Normal), yielding a maximum cumulative score of 28 points, where higher totals denote superior postural stability.

Psychometric evaluations across diagnoses—such as Parkinson’s disease, stroke, multiple sclerosis, vestibular hypofunction, and community-dwelling older adults—consistently demonstrate outstanding reliability and structural validity. Studies document exceptional inter-rater reliability (Intraclass Correlation Coefficient [ICC] = 0.91–0.98), test-retest reproducibility (ICC = 0.88–0.96), and internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.89–0.94). Rasch diagnostics confirm item fit within acceptable infit and outfit mean-square ranges (0.7–1.3), minimal floor and ceiling effects compared to legacy instruments like the Berg Balance Scale (BBS), and robust predictive validity for prospective falls. By integrating dynamic gait challenges and dual-task paradigms, the Mini-BESTest serves as a premier objective outcome measure for neurorehabilitation, physiotherapy protocols, and clinical trial efficacy endpoints.

2. Keywords

Mini-BESTest, dynamic balance, postural control, fall risk assessment, neurological rehabilitation, Parkinson’s disease, Rasch analysis, biomechanics, anticipatory postural adjustments, reactive balance, sensory integration, psychometrics

3. Authors

The Mini Balance Evaluation Systems Test was established as an optimized psychometric derivative of the original Balance Evaluation Systems Test (BESTest). Its primary developmental and validating authors include:

• Franco Franchignoni, MD: Unit of Occupational Rehabilitation and Ergonomics, Salvatore Maugeri Foundation, Clinica del Lavoro e della Riabilitazione, IRCCS, Veruno (NO), Italy. A world-renowned researcher in physical and rehabilitation medicine, specializing in Rasch measurement theory and instrument refinement.
• Fay B. Horak, PT, PhD: Department of Neurology, Oregon Health & Science University (OHSU), Portland, Oregon, USA, and Portland Veterans Affairs Medical Center. Dr. Horak is an internationally recognized neurophysiologist whose pioneering systems framework of postural control served as the theoretical architecture for both the full BESTest and the Mini-BESTest.
• Marco Godi, PT, MSc: Division of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Salvatore Maugeri Foundation, IRCCS, Veruno, Italy. Research investigator in motor recovery and clinical biomechanics.
• Antonio Nardone, MD, PhD: Department of Clinical-Surgical, Diagnostic and Pediatric Sciences, University of Pavia, and Posture and Movement Laboratory, Salvatore Maugeri Foundation, IRCCS, Veruno, Italy. Expert in human neurophysiology and postural stability.
• Dutch Translation & Clinical Adaptations: Royal Dutch Society for Physical Therapy (Koninklijk Nederlands Genootschap voor Fysiotherapie – KNGF), integrated within the specialized KNGF-richtlijn Ziekte van Parkinson (Parkinson’s Disease Guidelines, 2016).

4. Purpose

Postural instability is one of the most debilitating sequelae of neurological disease, aging, and musculoskeletal degeneration, frequently leading to catastrophic falls, sustained trauma, fear of falling, restricted community participation, and diminished quality of life. The primary purpose of the Mini-BESTest is to provide clinicians, neurophysiologists, and physical rehabilitation researchers with a brief yet comprehensive, psychometrically robust performance battery capable of dissecting the specific sensory, motor, and cognitive subsystems that fail when an individual experiences loss of equilibrium.

Historically, widely implemented balance scales—such as the Berg Balance Scale (BBS) or the Tinetti Performance Oriented Mobility Assessment (POMA)—have demonstrated notable ceiling effects when administered to higher-functioning neurological cohorts, ambulatory seniors, or individuals in early stages of Parkinson’s disease (Hoehn and Yahr Stages I–II). Furthermore, legacy tests predominantly focus on static, self-initiated postural preservation, omitting essential ecological challenges such as reactive in-flight recovery stepping elicited by external perturbations, sensory re-weighting under compromised visual and surface conditions, and dual-task cognitive interference during ambulation.

The original 36-item BESTest addressed these physiological gaps by structuring tasks across six theoretical balance subsystems. However, its extended administration time (typically 45–60 minutes) rendered it clinically impractical in fast-paced inpatient, outpatient, and acute rehabilitation settings, occasionally inducing physical fatigue that confounded patient performance. The Mini-BESTest resolves this clinical operational barrier by cutting testing duration to approximately 10–15 minutes while maintaining diagnostic precision. Its purposes encompass:

• Subsystem-Specific Differential Diagnosis: Pinpointing whether an individual’s balance deficits stem from compromised feedforward motor execution (anticipatory adjustments), impaired feedback-driven neuromuscular recovery (reactive stepping), degraded vestibular/somatosensory integration (sensory orientation), or locomotor destabilization under executive cognitive loads (dynamic gait).
• Fall Risk Stratification: Establishing empirically validated cut-off thresholds to identify patients at elevated risk for future falls across diverse diagnostic spectrums.
• Targeted Rehabilitation Prescription: Directing physical therapists toward mechanistic treatment interventions—such as perturbation-based balance training versus sensory re-weighting exercises—rather than generic, unfocused balance therapy.
• Outcome Measurement & Longitudinal Tracking: Offering a standardized, interval-level metric through Rasch-calibrated scoring that reliably quantifies spontaneous neurorecovery, disease progression, and the efficacy of novel pharmacologic, surgical, or physical therapy regimens.

5. Psychological and Physiological Constructs

The Mini-BESTest assesses the multidimensional construct of dynamic postural control. Postural control is fundamentally defined as the act of maintaining, achieving, or restoring a state of balance during any posture or activity. Within cognitive psychology, clinical biomechanics, and human motor neuroscience, postural control is recognized not as a single unitary reflex, but as a complex sensorimotor emergent property governed by interactions among the neuromuscular system, cognitive executive processes, and environmental constraints. The instrument assesses this overarching construct through four discrete operational subcomponents:

1. Anticipatory Postural Adjustments (Items 1–3)

Anticipatory Postural Adjustments (APAs) represent feedforward motor strategies deployed by the central nervous system to compensate for destabilizing forces anticipated prior to voluntary, self-initiated movement. Anatomically mediated by the supplementary motor area, premotor cortex, and basal ganglia, APAs activate postural muscles in the trunk and lower limbs milliseconds before focal limb displacement occurs.

• Sit to stand (Item 1): Assesses the patient’s capacity to translate the body’s center of mass (COM) forward and upward from a seated base of support without relying on upper-extremity propulsion, reflecting sagittal dynamic stabilization.
• Rise to toes (Item 2): Evaluates the voluntary upward displacement of the COM over a narrowed plantar base of support, demanding precise triceps surae activation and sustained plantarflexor torque.
• Stand on one leg (Item 3): Measures unilateral frontal-plane control, challenging lateral hip abductors (gluteus medius) and unmasking asymmetries in proprioceptive reliance and mechanical stability.

2. Reactive Postural Control (Items 4–6)

Reactive balance captures the central nervous system’s capacity to execute rapid, feedback-driven compensatory motor actions following unexpected external perturbations that displace the COM outside the base of support. When balance perturbations exceed the mechanical limits of in-place “ankle” or “hip” strategies, the nervous system must execute an automatic compensatory stepping response to establish a new base of support and prevent a fall.

• Compensatory stepping correction – forward (Item 4): Evaluated via a lean-and-release paradigm (the clinician supports the patient leaning forward against hands, which are abruptly removed), necessitating a rapid forward step.
• Compensatory stepping correction – backward (Item 5): Challenges posterior stepping mechanics, a critical diagnostic indicator in Parkinson’s disease where retropulsion and defective backward recovery steps predominate.
• Compensatory stepping correction – lateral (Item 6): Evaluates sideways stepping to preserve equilibrium against lateral perturbations, demanding rapid cross-over or lateral side-stepping actions. Lateral instability is one of the strongest biomechanical correlates of hip fracture risk.

3. Sensory Orientation (Items 7–9)

Sensory orientation evaluates the individual’s ability to maintain spatial orientation and equilibrium by dynamically re-weighting sensory afferents across the visual, somatosensory, and vestibular systems as environmental contexts shift. Grounded in the Clinical Test of Sensory Interaction and Balance (CTSIB), this construct investigates whether a patient can adapt when one or more sensory modalities are distorted or eliminated.

• Stance (feet together); eyes open, firm surface (Item 7): Provides baseline orientation with all three sensory systems fully accessible over a narrowed base of support.
• Stance (feet together); eyes closed, foam surface (Item 8): Eliminates reliable vision (eyes closed) and alters somatosensory mechanoreceptive feedback from plantar cutaneous and ankle proprioceptors via compliant medium-density foam, forcing the brainstem and vestibular nuclear complex to rely on vestibular inputs.
• Incline – eyes closed (Item 9): Places the patient on a 10-degree tilted surface with eyes closed, tilting the ankles into dorsiflexion/plantarflexion and demanding vestibular-guided alignment to true gravitational vertical rather than surface-perpendicular orientation.

4. Dynamic Gait (Items 10–14)

Dynamic gait captures postural coordination during continuous locomotor trajectories, evaluating the management of COM momentum while simultaneously processing environmental changes and cognitive loads. Locomotor balance requires intact cerebellar phase-dependent regulation, spinal central pattern generators, and prefrontal executive attentional resources.

• Change in gait speed (Item 10): Evaluates capacity to accelerate and decelerate during forward ambulation without losing sagittal balance.
• Walk with head turns – horizontal (Item 11): Evaluates dynamic vestibular-ocular-motor integration; rotating the head left and right during walking introduces semicircular canal stimulation while simultaneously degrading visual fixation.
• Walk with pivot turns (Item 12): Examines dynamic deceleration, axial rotational torque, and rapid re-establishment of base of support over a 180-degree turn.
• Step over obstacles (Item 13): Demands visual anticipatory planning, clearance motor programming, and asymmetric single-limb stance stability during obstacle crossing.
• Timed Up & Go with dual task (Item 14): Integrates cognitive-motor interference by requiring the patient to rise, walk 3 meters, turn, and sit while performing a simultaneous backward counting task (e.g., subtracting by threes). This illuminates cognitive cost, executive reserve, and susceptibility to distraction-induced falls.

6. Theoretical Framework

The Mini-BESTest is grounded in the Systems Model of Motor Control, initially conceptualized by Soviet neurophysiologist Nikolai Bernstein and systematically translated into modern neurological physical therapy by Anne Shumway-Cook and Fay Horak. This paradigm departed from historical reflex-hierarchical theories of posture popularized by Sir Charles Sherrington, which viewed balance as a linear chain of hardwired brainstem and spinal reflexes arranged hierarchically under cortical inhibition.

Under the Systems Theory framework, posture and balance emerge from dynamic, distributed interactions among multiple neurophysiological and biomechanical systems. The central nervous system does not simply react with stereotypical reflexes; rather, it functions as an active predictive controller solving Bernstein’s classic “degrees of freedom” problem. Postural stability requires continuous calibration between:

• Biomechanical Alignment and Limits of Stability: Controlling the relationship between the body center of mass and the functional base of support.
• Predictive Feedforward Mechanisms: Supplying pre-programmed anticipatory muscular activation via corticospinal and reticulospinal pathways to neutralize destabilization before movement initiation.
• Feedback Neuromuscular Coordination: Activating automatic postural synergies within 70–120 milliseconds following perturbation via spinal and brainstem pathways, coordinating ankle, hip, and stepping responses.
• Sensory Integration and Sensory Re-weighting: Dynamically shifting reliance between visual, somatosensory, and vestibular inputs based on reliability and environmental context.
• Cognitive-Attentional Resource Allocation: Mobilizing frontal-striatal executive attentional networks to maintain balance during secondary cognitive processing.

The clinical limitation of assessing balance as a singular, uniform entity is that distinct underlying neurological pathologies compromise different physiological systems. For instance, a patient with cerebellar ataxia presents with dysmetria and uncalibrated anticipatory adjustments; an individual with vestibular hypofunction fails primarily when visual and somatosensory inputs are altered; while an individual with Parkinson’s disease suffers severe disruption of automatic reactive stepping synergies and cognitive-motor dual-task allocation due to basal ganglia dopamine depletion. The theoretical premise of the Mini-BESTest is that by fractionating balance into testable operational components within a unified metric, clinicians can identify the exact subcomponent driving balance failure and deliver targeted, mechanistic interventions.

7. Validity

The Mini-BESTest has undergone extensive psychometric validation across multiple neurological and geriatric populations. Evidence covers construct, convergent, discriminant, and predictive validity.

Construct and Structural Validity

During the developmental psychometric study by Franchignoni et al. (2010), Rasch analysis of the original 36-item BESTest demonstrated that 14 items formed an internally consistent, unidimensional scale measuring dynamic balance. Subsequent confirmatory factor analytic studies and Rasch validation cohorts across Parkinson’s disease, stroke, and vestibular disorders confirmed that the 14 items satisfy requirements for local item independence, invariant item ordering, and unidimensional measurement of postural stability.

Convergent and Concurrent Validity

The Mini-BESTest shows robust convergent correlations with established physical therapy metrics:

• Berg Balance Scale (BBS): Pearson and Spearman correlation coefficients consistently range between r = 0.79 and r = 0.92 across stroke and geriatric cohorts. However, the Mini-BESTest demonstrates superior diagnostic utility in higher-functioning individuals, exhibiting negligible ceiling effects compared to the BBS, which displays pronounced ceiling clustering in mild-to-moderate Parkinson’s disease and independent community-dwelling adults.
• Functional Gait Assessment (FGA): Strong correlations have been documented (r = 0.82–0.91), confirming concordance in measuring dynamic ambulatory equilibrium.
• Timed Up and Go (TUG): Moderate-to-strong negative correlations (r = -0.68 to -0.84) align with expectations that longer completion times correlate with lower balance scores.
• Activities-specific Balance Confidence (ABC) Scale: Moderate positive correlations (r = 0.55–0.70) validate that patient-reported self-efficacy aligns with clinician-rated performance.

Discriminant and Known-Groups Validity

The Mini-BESTest reliably differentiates between individuals at varied stages of neurological impairment and fall vulnerability. In Parkinson’s disease, the instrument differentiates between Hoehn and Yahr stages I, II, III, and IV with statistical significance (p < 0.001). It differentiates individuals with a history of recurrent falls from non-fallers significantly better than legacy scales.

Predictive Validity and Fall Risk Cut-off Scores

Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve analyses across multiple investigations have established valid predictive cut-off points:

• Parkinson’s Disease: A threshold score of ≤ 19–20 / 28 demonstrates optimal sensitivity (84–88%) and specificity (78–82%) for predicting prospective falls over a 6-to-12-month follow-up window (Leddy et al., 2011; Duncan et al., 2013).
• Subacute and Chronic Stroke: Cut-off scores ranging between ≤ 17.5 and ≤ 21 / 28 demonstrate high diagnostic accuracy (area under the curve [AUC] = 0.84–0.89) for identifying post-stroke fallers (Tsang et al., 2013).
• Community-Dwelling Older Adults: A score of ≤ 21–22 / 28 separates older adults at elevated risk for falling from their balance-intact peers.

8. Reliability

Reliability estimates for the Mini-BESTest across clinical environments indicate high measurement consistency, minimal measurement error, and strong inter-rater reproducibility.

Internal Consistency

Analyses across diverse neurological conditions report excellent internal consistency. Values for Cronbach’s alpha range from α = 0.89 to 0.94. Person Separation Reliability derived from Rasch measurement models consistently exceeds 0.88–0.92, confirming that the scale differentiates individuals into at least three to four distinct strata of balance ability.

Inter-Rater and Intra-Rater Reliability

Because the Mini-BESTest relies on clinician observation and operational scoring rubrics, inter-rater reliability is vital. Across numerous trials:

• Inter-Rater Reliability: Overall Intraclass Correlation Coefficients (ICC_2,1) range from 0.91 to 0.98 among trained physiotherapists. Individual item-level agreements evaluated via Cohen’s or Fleiss’ kappa generally fall between κ = 0.65 and 0.88, demonstrating moderate-to-almost-perfect concordance.
• Intra-Rater / Test-Retest Reliability: When re-administered across intervals ranging from 48 hours to two weeks by the same clinician, ICC values consistently remain between 0.88 and 0.96, confirming temporal stability in non-progressive baselines.

Standard Error of Measurement and Responsiveness

Metrics for precision and clinical change demonstrate high sensitivity:

• Standard Error of Measurement (SEM): Typically established between 1.07 and 1.30 points across Parkinson’s disease and stroke populations.
• Minimal Detectable Change at 95% Confidence (MDC₉₅): Ranges between 3.0 and 4.2 points. A change of 4 points on the 28-point scale indicates a statistically genuine physiological shift beyond measurement error.
• Minimal Clinically Important Difference (MCID): Estimated at approximately 4 to 5 points in Parkinson’s disease and subacute stroke neurorehabilitation, reflecting noticeable functional improvement to patients and clinicians.

9. Factor Analysis and Psychometric Properties

The Mini-BESTest’s internal structure was validated using modern psychometric techniques, primarily Rasch Measurement Theory (a specialized form of Item Response Theory [IRT]) complemented by exploratory (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA).

Rasch Dimensionality and Fit Statistics

In the seminal reduction study by Franchignoni et al. (2010), the 36-item BESTest was evaluated in a cohort of 115 patients with balance deficits. Rasch rating scale analysis demonstrated that the original instrument contained redundant items, local dependency, and category disordering. By eliminating psychometrically redundant or misfit items, the authors derived the 14-item Mini-BESTest. Key structural findings include:

• Item Infit and Outfit Mean-Square (MnSq): All 14 items demonstrated information-weighted (infit) and outlier-sensitive (outfit) MnSq statistics within the recommended psychometric range of 0.70 to 1.30, confirming that every item contributes constructively to measuring a single underlying continuum of postural control.
• Principal Component Analysis of Rasch Residuals (PCAR): Demonstrated that the primary Rasch dimension accounted for > 60% of total variance, with the first residual contrast explaining < 2.0 eigenvalue units, verifying unidimensionality.
• Differential Item Functioning (DIF): No significant invariant bias across age, gender, or primary clinical diagnosis was observed, indicating that item difficulty calibrations remain stable across demographic groups.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

Subsequent psychometric examinations (e.g., Godi et al., 2013; Schlenstedt et al., 2016) assessed whether the Mini-BESTest is best characterized as a strictly unidimensional scale or a higher-order multidimensional model encompassing four correlated first-order factors: Anticipatory Postural Adjustments (APAs), Reactive Postural Control, Sensory Orientation, and Dynamic Gait. Structural equation modeling established good fit indices for the four-factor correlated model:

• Comparative Fit Index (CFI): ≥ 0.95
• Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI): ≥ 0.94
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): ≤ 0.06 (90% CI: [0.04, 0.08])

Factor loadings for individual items onto their respective subscales consistently range from λ = 0.68 to 0.91. Because the subscales correlate strongly with one another (r = 0.70–0.85), calculating a single summative composite score (0–28) is psychometrically defensible and clinically practical.

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

The Mini-BESTest is an objective, clinician-administered, physical performance test battery. Below are its formal structural parameters and administration requirements:

• Instrument Name: Mini Balance Evaluation Systems Test (Mini-BESTest)
• Format: Clinician-rated observational performance battery (14 physical tasks)
• Target Population: Adults and older adults with balance disorders, including Parkinson’s disease, stroke, traumatic brain injury, multiple sclerosis, peripheral vestibular disorders, and frail elderly individuals
• Required Equipment:
  • Standard chair without armrests
  • Digital stopwatch / timer
  • Medium-density 4-inch compliant balance foam (e.g., Airex Balance-Pad)
  • 10-degree incline balance ramp
  • 9-inch (approx. 23 cm) height obstacle (e.g., box, step, or hurdle)
  • Measuring tape to demarcate a 3-meter walking distance on the floor
• Administration Time: Approximately 10 to 15 minutes
• Item Count: 14 discrete physical tasks
• Subscale Breakdown:
  • Anticipatory Postural Adjustments: Items 1–3 (Maximum: 6 points)
  • Reactive Postural Control: Items 4–6 (Maximum: 6 points)
  • Sensory Orientation: Items 7–9 (Maximum: 6 points)
  • Dynamic Gait: Items 10–14 (Maximum: 10 points)
• Response Scale (Authentic 3-Point Ordinal Scale):
  • 0 = Severe: Unable to perform, requires physical assistance, or demonstrates severe instability / fall
  • 1 = Moderate: Able to perform but with difficulty, compensatory movement strategies, hesitation, or abnormal response
  • 2 = Normal: Performs task independently, smoothly, symmetrically, and within normal velocity and stability limits
• Bilateral Items: For items evaluated on both sides (e.g., Stand on one leg: left vs. right; Compensatory stepping correction – lateral: left vs. right), the lower (poorer) performance score is typically recorded into the total cumulative score to identify the governing functional limitation.
• Scoring and Interpretation Rules:
  • Cumulative Range: 0 to 28 points
  • Directionality: Higher scores reflect superior dynamic balance and postural equilibrium; lower scores denote severe balance impairment.
  • Fall Risk Stratification: Scores ≤ 19–20 / 28 generally indicate elevated fall risk requiring therapeutic intervention (population-specific variance applies).

11. Permissions, Fee, and Test Year

The Mini-BESTest was originally published in 2010 by Dr. Franco Franchignoni and colleagues. It is derived from the parent 36-item BESTest developed by Dr. Fay B. Horak and colleagues in 2009.

Licensing and Accessibility: The Mini-BESTest is widely placed in the public domain for clinical, academic, and non-commercial educational use. The test form and administration instructions can be accessed freely without licensing fees across professional physical therapy societies, including the American Physical Therapy Association (APTA) and the Royal Dutch Society for Physical Therapy (KNGF). Use within funded clinical trials or commercial digital health platforms may require attribution to the original developmental authors (Franchignoni et al., 2010; Horak et al., 2009) and reference to relevant institutional copyrights.

12. References

• Duncan, R. P., Leddy, A. L., & Earhart, G. M. (2013). Five percent change in Mini-BESTest score predicts falls in individuals with Parkinson disease. Physical Therapy, 93(4), 542–550. https://doi.org/10.2522/ptj.20120286
• Franchignoni, F., Horak, F., Godi, M., Nardone, A., & Giordano, A. (2010). Using psychometric techniques to improve the Balance Evaluation Systems Test: The Mini-BESTest. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 42(4), 323–331. https://doi.org/10.2340/16501977-0537
• Godi, M., Franchignoni, F., Caligari, M., Giordano, A., Turcato, A. M., & Nardone, A. (2013). Comparison of reliability, validity, and responsiveness of the Mini-BESTest and Berg Balance Scale in patients with balance disorders. Physical Therapy, 93(2), 158–167. https://doi.org/10.2522/ptj.20120171
• Horak, F. B. (2006). Postural orientation and equilibrium: What do we need to know about neural control of balance to prevent falls? Age and Ageing, 35(Suppl 2), ii7–ii11. https://doi.org/10.1093/ageing/afl077
• Horak, F. B., Wrisley, D. M., & Frank, J. (2009). The Balance Evaluation Systems Test (BESTest) to differentiate balance deficits. Physical Therapy, 89(5), 484–498. https://doi.org/10.2522/ptj.20080071
• Koninklijk Nederlands Genootschap voor Fysiotherapie. (2016). KNGF-richtlijn Ziekte van Parkinson. KNGF. Amersfoort, The Netherlands.
• Leddy, A. L., Crowner, B. E., & Earhart, G. M. (2011). Utility of the Mini-BESTest, BESTest, and BESTest sections for balance assessments in individuals with Parkinson disease. Gait & Posture, 34(3), 378–383. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gaitpost.2011.06.005
• Schlenstedt, C., Brombacher, S., Hartwigsen, G., Weisser, B., Möller, B., & Deuschl, G. (2016). Comparing the Mini-BESTest with the Berg Balance Scale to evaluate balance disorders in Parkinson’s disease. Gait & Posture, 49, 116–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gaitpost.2016.06.024
• Tsang, C. S., Liao, L. R., Chung, R. C., & Pang, M. Y. (2013). Psychometric properties of the Mini-Balance Evaluation Systems Test (Mini-BESTest) in community-dwelling individuals with stroke. Physical Therapy, 93(8), 1102–1115. https://doi.org/10.2522/ptj.20120454

13. Items of the Scale (Questionnaire)