4.3 Article

Balance Error Scoring System Performance Changes After a Competitive Athletic Season

Journal

CLINICAL JOURNAL OF SPORT MEDICINE
Volume 23, Issue 4, Pages 312-317

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/JSM.0b013e318285633f

Keywords

concussion; balance error scoring system; postural control

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To evaluate the change in Balance Error Scoring System (BESS) performance after an athletic season. Design: A prospective longitudinal group study. Setting: University biomechanics research laboratory. Participants: A total of 58 college-aged females (23 soccer student-athletes, 16 volleyball student-athletes, and 19 recreationally active healthy college students) participated in the study. Interventions: The BESS test was administered on 2 occasions 90 days apart. For the student-athletes, the first test (PRE) was administered before the start of their athletic season and the second test (POST) was administered immediately after the season. For the recreationally active college students, the PRE test was at the beginning of the academic semester and the POST test exactly 90 days thereafter. Main Outcome Measures: Total BESS score at PRE and POST was compared with a 3 x 2 repeated measures analysis of variance. The overall change score and absolute value change score were also calculated and compared with a 1-sample t test to an expected change of zero errors. Results: There was no group by time interaction; however, there was a main effect for time. There was a significant improvement (P = 0.003) between PRE (9.00 +/- 2.97 errors) and POST (7.92 +/- 2.78 errors) BESS performance. There were significant differences for both the overall change score (1.08 errors) and the absolute value change score (2.00 errors). Conclusions: A clinically and statistically significant difference in BESS performance was identified after a 90-day intercollegiate athletic season.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available