Anybody knows how to interpret Berg Balance Scores in relation to fall risks? I use the test and I know the higher you score the less your risk for falls but is there any numerical value as a score that would predict your risk to lets say minimal, moderate. or maximum risk? I would appreciate any information regarding this matter. Much Thanks! alex
The only thing I can remember is that a score less than 45 out of the total score of 56 indicates an increased risk for falls. I believe the Tinetti score breaks it down a little better. A tinetti score less than 19 inidcates a high risk and a score between 19-24, indicates a moderate risk for falls.
Thanks jma! I believe the Berg is a little bit more easier to administer but lemme check on Tinetti as well! Appreciate the information you shared..Alex
Predictive One hundred and thirteen elderly were followed for 12 months, and were classified as having 0, 1, =>2 falls during that time. A Berg Balance Scale of <45 was predictive of multiple falls.
For higher functioning pts (and for other populations with ambulation concerns) you might consider the Dynamic Gait Index. Very nice, easily administered and scored tool.
No, the final scores of the Tinetti and the Berg are not comparable. The Tinetti doesn't challenge balance as much as the Berg. The Tinetti is a nice option for those with low functional levels. The Berg is more well-rounded (if that is the right term) or more thorough in providing a picture on ability to control center of gravity in a variety of functional tests. The Berg seems very appropriate for independent community dwelling elderly. I've put the two tools head to head and the Tinetti doesn't pick up problematic areas for independent community dwelling elderly as well as the Berg. The Tinetti seems to have a ceiling effect, in my experience. Yes, the Tinetti quick and easy (from a time perspective) but if it does have ceiling effects with a certain population, is it the best tool to use?