Balance – Traditional and Modern Assessment Methods

Balance is the ability to distribute body weight evenly in static positions, such as standing, or during movement so that a person does not fall—or can recover a stable state after external perturbations. This involves control of the body’s centre of mass (static balance) or the ability to maintain stability during activities (dynamic balance) [1].

Traditional Methods for Balance Assessment

Traditionally, balance has been measured with subjective clinical methods that are often time-consuming and have limitations such as ceiling effects, dependence on clinician skill and interpretation, and suboptimal repeatability and reliability [4].

History (Anamnesis)

A thorough collection of the patient’s subjective experiences of balance problems and fall history is essential. Key elements to explore include:

• Patient complaints: Experiences of dizziness, unsteadiness, falls, or a sensation that “the room is spinning.”

• Medical factors: Existing comorbidities, e.g., neurological disease or inner ear problems.

• Medication use: Certain drugs can affect balance and increase fall risk.

• Previous falls: Frequency, severity, and cause of falls.

Observation

A visual assessment may include:

• Posture and alignment: Identify deviations that may affect balance.

• Movement patterns: Observe sit-to-stand transitions or gait.

• Gait pattern: Screen for asymmetry or instability.

Simple Clinical Tests

Traditional balance tests may include:

• Romberg test: Patient stands with feet together, arms at sides, and eyes closed. Loss of balance may indicate sensory dysfunction.

• Single-leg stance test: Evaluates static balance by recording how long the patient can stand on one leg.

• Timed Up and Go (TUG): Time to rise from a chair, walk three metres, turn, and return to the chair.

Modern Approaches to Balance Assessment

Modern methods employ technology and standardised protocols to improve precision, reliability, and objectivity. These include:

Technology-Assisted Balance Assessment

• Force-plate analysis: Measures pressure distribution and stability in standing.

• Virtual reality (VR): Simulates environments to test dynamic balance across scenarios.

• Motion sensors and apps: Wearable sensors attached to the body to quantify movement and balance in real time.

Assessment of Static and Dynamic Balance

A thorough evaluation of both static and dynamic balance is essential to identify balance problems and develop effective treatment plans. Below are representative tests and methods.

Assessment of Static Balance

Functional Reach Test

• Description: Assesses forward reach while standing without losing balance.

• Purpose: Evaluates standing stability and fall risk.

• Procedure: Patient stands with feet hip-width apart and reaches forward as far as possible without moving the feet.

Berg Balance Scale (BBS)

• Description: A validated 14-item scale assessing balance in sitting and standing.

• Purpose: Measures static and dynamic balance in older adults and neurological populations.

• Scoring: Maximum 56 points; lower scores indicate higher fall risk.

Fullerton Advanced Balance Scale (FAB)

• Description: An advanced scale used to assess balance in active older adults.

• Components: Includes tasks such as single-leg stance, standing on foam, and walking backwards.

Balance Evaluation Systems Test (BESTest)

• Description: A comprehensive test covering biomechanical constraints, stability limits, and postural responses.

• Use: Especially helpful in complex balance disorders.

Tests for Dynamic Balance (Gait-Related Activities)

Four-Stage Balance Test

• Description: Evaluates balance by placing the patient in four progressively challenging stances.

• Purpose: Identifies fall risk in older adults.

Functional Gait Assessment (FGA)

• Description: Assesses balance during gait with challenges (e.g., walking backwards, tandem walking).

• Use: Useful for neurological patients and individuals with gait disturbances.

Biodex Balance System (BBS)

• Description: An electronic system with a dynamic platform to quantify balance.

• Advantages: Provides precise metrics of balance capacity.

Objective Methods for Balance Assessment

Advanced Technologies

• Force plates: Measure pressure distribution and sway; common in laboratories.

• Optoelectronic motion systems: Combine cameras and force plates to analyse movement and balance.

• Inertial Measurement Units (IMUs): Sensors providing quantitative data on balance and motor control.

Limitations

• High costs.

• Time-consuming.

• Require specialised expertise.

• Not easily accessible for routine clinical use.

Future Needs

Affordable, user-friendly, and reliable quantitative tools suitable for clinical practice and broader populations are needed.

Example of a Laboratory Setup

Combining cameras, force plates, and IMUs yields accurate measures of balance capacity, but this is primarily used in research and advanced clinical environments [5].

By combining subjective tests with advanced technologies, one can achieve a holistic understanding of a person’s balance problems and design effective treatment strategies.

Modern Balance Assessment

Modern balance assessment has expanded the ability to evaluate and monitor stability, especially for individuals at increased risk of falls. While traditional methods are often subjective, technological advances provide objective, precise, and practical solutions for clinic- and home-based assessments.

Home Monitoring of Balance

Home-based balance assessment can benefit those with poor stability or high fall risk. Traditional clinical evaluations remain relevant for identifying fall risk and underlying causes [6], but modern technologies offer greater accuracy and usability. Sensor-based systems and machine learning enable continuous monitoring in real-world settings.

Sensor-Based Methods

Sensors and connected devices have transformed balance assessment. These include:

Wearable Inertial Sensors

IMUs commonly include accelerometers, gyroscopes, and magnetometers. Combining data from these sensors enables high-precision measurement of human movement [8].

• Accelerometers: Measure linear acceleration in three axes; capture motion and gravity [9].

• Gyroscopes: Measure angular velocity and orientation; analyse rotational movements [10].

• Magnetometers: Register magnetic fields and magnetic dipole moment.

Advantages of Wearable Inertial Devices

• Cost-effective compared with laboratory systems.

• Portable and lightweight—suitable beyond the lab, including at home.

• Objective assessment—quantifies gait and balance in real time.

• Versatile—assesses tremor (amplitude/frequency), gait analysis, and instrumented clinical tests.

• Technology integration—compatible with videogame-based therapy and rehabilitation robots [11].

Smartphones and Apps

Modern smartphones contain built-in accelerometers and gyroscopes for balance and gait analysis. These devices:

• Provide broad accessibility.

• Operate via apps that deliver real-time stability and movement metrics.

• Enable simple, home-based monitoring and follow-up.

Advanced Systems for Balance Assessment

• Force plates: Laboratory-grade measurement of pressure distribution and stability; require expertise.

• 3D motion capture: Combines cameras and force plates for detailed analysis; high accuracy but costly and lab-dependent.

• RGB-D sensors: Combine colour (RGB) and depth data to assess movement and provide objective evaluation without extensive equipment.

Future Applications

• Neuro-robots: Enhance mobility and balance.

• Videogame-based therapy: Integrates rehabilitation with interactive training.

• Continuous home monitoring: Provides real-time data to clinicians and patients.

Modern balance assessment offers unprecedented opportunities to identify and manage balance problems with greater precision, improving outcomes through objective measurement, accessibility, and integration into daily life.

RGB-D Sensors for Assessing Sitting Balance

Sitting balance is critical for motor control, especially in individuals unable to stand. Traditional assessments rely on human observation—subjective, time-consuming, and less precise [7][13]. Sensor-based methods such as Red-Green-Blue-Depth (RGB-D) sensors offer several advantages for clinical assessment of balance and postural control.

Advantages of Sensor-Based Methods

• Objectivity: Data are not influenced by operator subjectivity; inter-operator variability is eliminated.

• Natural movement: No markers or intrusive equipment required.

• Multichannel data capture: Sensors can record multiple body segments simultaneously.

• Speed and precision: 3D instruments like RGB-D sensors can reduce data-collection time and increase measurement accuracy [7].

RGB-D sensors have been used in rehabilitation, Parkinson’s assessment, ergonomics, and balance/postural control evaluation [14][15][16][17][18].

Microsoft Kinect™ as a Balance-Assessment Tool

Microsoft Kinect™ is a cost-effective RGB-D sensor suitable for assessing standing balance during clinical postural control tests. It uses an RGB camera and a depth camera to create a 3D map of the scene. Algorithms identify and track 25 joints in real time, including major joints and limbs.

Advantages of Kinect™

• Portability and cost-effectiveness: Cheaper than many 3D camera systems.

• Minimal intrusiveness: No body markers required.

• Ease of use: Easily integrated into therapies and monitoring systems with reasonable cost [20].

Limitations of Kinect™

• Small-movement capture: Limited ability to detect fine movements.

• Fixed placement: Stationary sensor with a limited capture range.

• Biomechanical accuracy: Constraints, particularly at the shoulder.

• Sitting-movement accuracy: Less precise for seated movements than for standing [16][21].

Comparison with 3D Motion Analysis

Although slightly less accurate than advanced 3D motion-analysis tools, Kinect™ provides sufficiently reliable data for assessing movement and postural control. For common clinical tests—such as timing gait during balance recovery—Kinect™ is a practical alternative [18][22].

Precision Limitations

• Unregistered micro-movements: Small movements may be missed, potentially leaving centre-of-mass (COM) estimates unchanged [23][24].

Conclusion

RGB-D sensors like Microsoft Kinect™ are cost-effective, user-friendly solutions for assessing balance and postural control. While precision limitations exist, they provide adequate data for clinical evaluations. Ongoing research and technological improvements may further enhance accuracy and integrate these tools into both clinical and home settings.

Mobile Applications for Balance Assessment

Use of smartphone applications for self-administered or professional health assessment is rapidly increasing across age groups [25][26]. Apps targeting balance assessment must be validated and regulated to deliver accurate services that support adequate training programmes or therapist-guided care.

Although many commercial developers offer mobile health apps, numerous products lack evidence-based results—posing risks to patient safety and professional reputation. Below are examples of validation efforts for balance-assessment apps, including K-D Balance, Gait & Balance (G&B), MyAnkle, Y-MED, and BalanceLab.

1) King-Devick (K-D) Balance Application

K-D Balance (Apple devices) measures 3D coordinate data via the device’s internal accelerometer, providing a quantitative balance score based on algorithms [28].

• Reliability: K-D composite shows moderate-to-good reliability (ICC = 0.42). Lower reliability may reflect a young, healthy, and active sample, limiting between-participant variability [29].

2) Gait & Balance (G&B) Application

G&B analyses gait and balance using the smartphone’s built-in sensors. The app includes six tasks:

Gait tasks:

• Walk straight ahead.

• Walk straight while turning the head side-to-side.

Static balance tasks (30 seconds each):

• Firm surface, eyes open.

• Firm surface, eyes closed.

• Foam surface, eyes open.

• Foam surface, eyes closed.

• Validity & reliability: Excellent validity and high reliability for postural stability; weaker performance for step-length/time variability and asymmetry [31].

3) MyAnkle Application

MyAnkle assesses standing balance as an alternative to the Berg Balance Scale (BBS), focusing on eyes-closed tasks in patients and healthy individuals [32][33].

• Validity: Good for eyes-closed tasks, not for eyes-open; does not discriminate patients from healthy controls.

• Reliability: Test–retest reliability is insufficient for precise follow-up—use caution clinically [26].

4) Y-MED Application

Y-MED uses a smartphone accelerometer to evaluate everyday postural balance, with the phone fastened at the lumbosacral region.

• Validity & reliability: Practical for daily use, but inadequate for balance assessment in chronic low back pain patients [34][35].

5) BalanceLab Application

BalanceLab (Android) uses the phone’s integrated accelerometer to measure postural stability; developed for older adults with balance problems.

• Validity & reliability: Moderate to excellent test–retest reliability (ICC = 0.76–0.91) [36].

Summary

Balance problems are prevalent across a range of system disorders and must not be overlooked during assessment, follow-up, or home-programme design, as balance often plays a crucial role in function and safety. Traditional methods have important limitations, creating a need for valid, reliable, accessible, and user-friendly tools that are also economically sustainable.

Smartphone applications show promising potential as modern solutions for balance assessment, providing objective measurements without complex laboratory setups. Despite their usability and accessibility, further research is needed to fully validate these methods and ensure they meet clinical standards.

References

1. Mahmoudi F, Rahnama N, Daneshjoo A, Behm DG. Comparison of dynamic and static balance among professional male soccer players by position. J Bodywork Movement Ther. 2023 Oct 1;36:307-12.

2. Murdin L, Schilder AGM. Epidemiology of Balance Symptoms and Disorders in the Community. Otol Neurotol. 2015 Mar;36(3):387–92.

3. Burns E, Stevens J, Lee R. The direct costs of fatal and non-fatal falls among older adults — United States. J Safety Res. 2016;58:99-103.

4. Oh-Park M, Mehta N. Assessment and Treatment Of Balance Impairments. AAPM&R. Available from: https://now.aapmr.org/assessment-and-treatment-of-balance-impairments/ [accessed 29/12/2024]

5. Noamani A, Nazarahari M, Lewicke J, Vette AH, Rouhani H. Validity of using wearable inertial sensors for assessing the dynamics of standing balance. Med Eng Phys. 2020 Mar;77:53–9.

6. Mancini M, Horak FB. The relevance of clinical balance assessment tools to differentiate balance deficits. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med. 2010;46(2):239-48.

7. Bartlett K, Camba J. An RGB-D sensor-based instrument for sitting balance assessment. Multimed Tools Appl. 2023;82(18):27245–68.

8. Ansah S, Chen D. Wearable-Gait-Analysis-Based Activity Recognition: A Review. Int J Smart Sens Intell Syst. 2022 Jan 1;15(1).

9. Ghislieri M, Gastaldi L, Pastorelli S, Tadano S, Agostini V. Wearable inertial sensors to assess standing balance: A systematic review. Sensors (Basel). 2019;19(19):4075.

10. Passaro VMN, Cuccovillo A, Vaiani L, Carlo M, Campanella CE. Gyroscope Technology and Applications: A Review in the Industrial Perspective. Sensors (Basel). 2017 Oct 7;17(10):2284.

11. Iosa, Marco; Picerno, Pietro; Paolucci, Stefano; Morone, Giovanni. Wearable inertial sensors for human movement analysis. Expert Review of Medical Devices, 2016;1–19. doi:10.1080/17434440.2016.1198694

12. Park DS, Lee G. Validity and reliability of balance assessment software using the Nintendo Wii balance board: usability and validation. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2014;11(1):99.

13. Arora T, Oates A, Lynd K, Musselman KE. Current state of balance assessment during transferring, sitting, standing and walking activities for the spinal cord injured population: a systematic review. J Spinal Cord Med. 2020;43(1):10–23.

14. Bo APL, Hayashibe M, Poignet P. Joint angle estimation in rehabilitation with inertial sensors and its integration with Kinect. 2011 Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, Boston, MA, USA. 2011:3479-83.

15. Seo NJ, Fathi M, Hur P, Crocher C. Modifying Kinect placement to improve upper limb joint angle measurement accuracy. J Hand Ther. 2016;29(4):465-73.

16. Galna B, Barry G, Jackson D, Mhiripiri D, Olivier P, Rochester L. Accuracy of the Microsoft Kinect sensor for measuring movement in people with Parkinson’s disease. Gait Posture. 2014;39(4):1062–1068.

17. Diego-Mas JA, Alcaide-Marzal J. Using Kinect™ sensor in observational methods for assessing postures at work. Appl Ergon. 2014;45(4):976–985.

18. Clark RA, Pua YH, Fortin K, Ritchie C, Webster KE, Denehy L, Bryant AL. Validity of the Microsoft Kinect for assessment of postural control. Gait Posture. 2012;36(3):372–377.

19. Milosevic B, Leardini A, Farella E. Kinect and wearable inertial sensors for motor rehabilitation programs at home: state of the art and an experimental comparison. BioMedical Engineering OnLine. 2020 Apr 23;19(1).

20. Webster D, Celik O. Systematic review of Kinect applications in elderly care and stroke rehabilitation. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2014;11(1):108.

21. Xu X, McGorry RW. The validity of the first and second generation Microsoft Kinect™ for identifying joint center locations during static postures. Appl Ergon. 2015;49:47–54.

22. Shani G, Shapiro A, Oded G, Dima K, Melzer I. Validity of the Microsoft Kinect system in assessment of compensatory stepping behavior during standing and treadmill walking. European Review of Aging and Physical Activity. 2017 Dec;14(1):1-1.

23. Yang Y, Pu F, Li Y, Li S, Fan Y, Li D. Reliability and validity of Kinect RGB-D sensor for assessing standing balance. IEEE Sensors Journal. 2014 Jan 2;14(5):1633-8.

24. Clark RA, Pua YH, Oliveira CC, Bower KJ, Thilarajah S, McGaw R, Hasanki K, Mentiplay BF. Reliability and concurrent validity of the Microsoft Xbox One Kinect for assessment of standing balance and postural control. Gait & Posture. 2015 Jul 1;42(2):210-3.

25. Duncan PW, Studenski S, Chandler J, Prescott B. Functional reach: predictive validity in a sample of elderly male veterans. J Gerontol. 1992;47:M93–M98.

26. Abdo N, ALSaadawy B, Embaby E, Rehan Youssef A. Validity and reliability of smartphone use in assessing balance in patients with chronic ankle instability and healthy volunteers: A cross-sectional study. Gait & Posture. 2020 Oct;82:26–32.

27. Morera, E. P., De la Torre Díez, I., Garcia-Zapirain, B., López-Coronado, M., and Arambarri, J., Security recommendations for mHealth apps: Elaboration of a developer’s guide. J. Med. Syst. 2016;40(6):152.

28. Zhang C, Talaber A, Truong M, Vargas BB. K-D Balance: An objective measure of balance in tandem and double leg stances. Digital Health. 2019 Nov 4;5:2055207619885573. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6831964/

29. Krause DA, Anderson SE, Campbell GR, Davis SJ, Tindall SW, Hollman JH. Responsiveness of a Balance Assessment Using a Mobile Application. Sports health. 2020 Jan 21;12(4):401–4.

30. Olsen S, Rashid U, Allerby C, Brown E, Leyser M, McDonnell G, et al. Smartphone-based gait and balance accelerometry is sensitive to age and correlates with clinical and kinematic data. Gait & Posture. 2023 Feb 1;100:57–64.

31. Rashid U, Barbado D, Olsen S, Alder G, Elvira JLL, Lord S, et al. Validity and Reliability of a Smartphone App for Gait and Balance Assessment. Sensors. 2021 Dec 25;22(1):124.

32. McHorgh N, editor. Finding balance with a new mobile app. Pursuit. 2014. Available from: https://www.eecg.utoronto.ca/~jayar/CAM/pursuit_spring_-2014_final_.pdf

33. Shah N, Aleong R, So I. Novel Use of a Smartphone to Measure Standing Balance. JMIR Rehabilitation and Assistive Technologies. 2016 Mar 29;3(1):e4.

34. Park SD, Kim JS, Kim SY. Reliability and validity of the postural balance application program using the movement accelerometer principles in healthy young adults. Physical Therapy Korea. 2013;20(2):52-9.

35. Amin N, Bassem El Nahass, Ibrahim M. Validity and reliability of balance Y-MED application in chronic mechanical low back pain patients. Bulletin of Faculty of Physical Therapy. 2022 Apr 6;27(1).

36. Pooranawatthanakul K, Siriphorn A. Testing the validity and reliability of a new android application-based accelerometer balance assessment tool for community-dwelling older adults. Gait & Posture. 2023 Jul 1;104:103-8.