1. Rating scale analysis of the Berg balance scale1
Diana L Kornetti, MA, PT, Stacy L Fritz, MSPT, Yi-Po Chiu, MHS, PT, Kathye E Light, PhD, PT, Craig A Velozo, PhD, OTR 
Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 
Volume 85, Issue 7, Pages (July 2004)
DOI: /j.apmr

2. Fig 1
(A) Original scale for item “tandem stance” is a graphic presentation of the probability of responses for each of the 5 ratings (0–4) as a function of the overall performance of individuals on the BBS as originally written. (B) Revised scale presents the probabilities of the revised rating categories for “tandem stance.”
Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation  , DOI: ( /j.apmr )

3. Fig 2
(A) Original scale for item “standing on one leg” and (B) revised scale for “standing on one leg” present another example of rating-scale modification, this time using the item “standing on one leg.” In the original rating scale (A), although ratings 0, 1, and 4 emerge as more probable than other ratings, ratings 2 and 3 do not. To compensate for the low probability of using these 2 rating categories, rating 3 was combined with rating 2. (B) The resultant probability curves from this revision.
Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation  , DOI: ( /j.apmr )

4. Fig 3
Berg Balance Scale. The column marked “old” refers to the original BBS. The column marked “revised” refers to the revised scale based on Rasch analysis.
Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation  , DOI: ( /j.apmr )

5. Fig 4
(A) Original item map and (B) revised item map place person ability measures on the left and item difficulty on the right of the vertical line. Mean (M), 1 standard deviation (S), and 2 standard deviations (T) are indicated for both person ability and item difficulty measures. The horizontal line indicates the 45-cutoff score.
Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation  , DOI: ( /j.apmr )