Search Results

All English-language publications are shown here. You can find all publications, including the German ones here

Search term: Measurement

YearTitle / CitationDocument typeLinks / Downloads
2024

2024:  

A holistic concept for measuring stress factors: Future sensor technologies for outpatient nursing staff and exoskeleton development

Citation:  

Wirth, L.M., Peters, M., Will, N., Tabie, M., Rossol, T., Pfeiffer, N., Wittenberg, T., Behrens, J., Lienenbrink, S. & Thron, C. (2024): A holistic concept for measuring stress factors: Future sensor technologies for outpatient nursing staff and exoskeleton development. Gerontechnology, 23 (2), 1-1. https://doi.org/10.4017/gt.2024.23.s.1060.opp

Document type:  

Journal article

Links / Downloads:  


2023

2023:  

Social Innovation Measurement

Citation:  

Terstriep, J., Krlev, G., Mildenberger, G., Strambach, S., Thurmann, J.-F. & Wloka, L.-F. (2023): Social Innovation Measurement. In Howaldt, J. & Kaletka, C. (eds.), Encyclopedia of Social Innovation (438-447). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

Document type:  

Article in

Links / Downloads:  


2022

2022:  

Pinning it down? Measuring innovation for sustainability transitions

Citation:  

Krlev, G. & Terstriep, J. (2022): Pinning it down? Measuring innovation for sustainability transitions. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 45, 270-288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2022.11.005

Document type:  

Journal article

Links / Downloads:  


2021

2021:  

Measuring Social Innovation

Citation:  

Terstriep, J., Krlev, G., Mildenberger, G., Strambach, S., Thurmann, J.-F., & Wloka, L.-F. (2021): Measuring Social Innovation. In Howaldt, J., Kaletka, C., & Schröder, A. (Eds.), A Research Agenda for Social Innovation (263-286). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781789909357.00024

Document type:  

Article in

Links / Downloads:  


2020

2020:  

Cross-cultural adaption and validation of the German version of the Mini-BESTest in individuals after stroke: An observational study

Citation:  

Cramer, E., Weber, F., Faro, G., Klein, M., Willeke, D., Hering, T. & Zietz, D. (2020): Cross-cultural adaption and validation of the German version of the Mini-BESTest in individuals after stroke: An observational study. Neurological Research and Practice, 2 (1), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s42466-020-00078-w

Abstract

Background
Postural control is a very important function in everyday life. However, assessing postural control with commonly used measurement instruments (MIs) is limited due to deficits in their psychometric properties. The Mini-Balance Evaluation Systems Test (Mini-BESTest) is a comprehensive and multidimensional MI for assessing postural control in persons with limited balance function, such as individuals after stroke. Despite the increasing use of the Mini-BESTest worldwide, no German version is available.

Research question
Is the German version of the Mini-BESTest (GVMBT) comprehensible and valid for measuring postural control in individuals after stroke?

Methods
The Mini-BESTest was translated and cross-culturally adapted, following established guidelines. It was pilot-tested with ten participants. This observational measurement and validation study was conducted at one point and included 50 participants with subacute and chronic stroke (mean age: 64.58 ± 13.34 years/ 34 men/ 16 women). Convergent validity was investigated using 1) the Berg Balance Scale (BBS) and 2) the Timed “Up & Go” (TUG). The MIs were evaluated for normal distribution with the calculation of skewness, kurtosis and Q-Q-Plots. Spearman correlation coefficients and Bland Altman analysis were used to examine the relationship between the MIs. The internal consistency was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha.

Results
Comprehension of the GVMBT was confirmed. The GVMBT correlated significantly with the BBS (rs = 0.93) and the TUG (rs = − 0.85). Bland Altman analysis revealed low absolute differences. The GVMBT demonstrated no significant floor or ceiling effects and showed excellent internal consistency (Cronbach’s α = 0.90).

Significance
The GVMBT has excellent validity and internal consistency. Due to this and its specific subcategories, the GVMBT is recommended for the use in research and clinical practice. Further psychometric properties should be evaluated.

Document type:  

Journal article

Links / Downloads: