ArticleEinstein (Sao Paulo, Brazil)2018
Construction and validation of content of one instrument to assess falls in the elderly.
Article in Einstein (Sao Paulo, Brazil), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 42 citations in OpenAlex.
- Reducing Barriers for Best Practice in People Living with Dementia: Cross-Cultural Adaptation and Content Validity of the Brazilian Version of the Pain Assessment in Impaired Cognition (PAIC-15) Meta-Tool.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025Article
- Photobiomodulation on vocal training and rehabilitation: Delphi consensus based on experts.CoDAS · 2025Article
- Fall risk question-based tools for fall screening in community-dwelling older adults: a systematic review of the literature.Journal of frailty, sarcopenia and falls · 2023Review
- Deprescribing clonazepam in primary care older patients: a feasibility study.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2022Article
- Fall Risk Assessment Scales: A Systematic Literature Review.Nursing reports (Pavia, Italy) · 2021Review
- Validation of the Skindex-17 quality of life assessment instrument for a Brazilian population.Anais brasileiros de dermatologiaArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo develop and validate the content of the online Questionnaire for Fall Risk Assessment in the Elderly.
methodsThe instrument was developed based on the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) of the World Health Organization. Initially, the set of items was submitted to evaluation of judges (healthcare professionals with experience in elderly health), who could suggest inclusion or exclusion of questions from the instrument; they were also asked to rate each question according to the expected scope. At this stage, clarity and relevance levels for each item were evaluated, generating a total of Content Validity Coefficient (CtVC).
resultsContent Validity Coefficient values were satisfactory for both clarity (CtVC=0.76) and relevance (CtVC=0.82) of the questions. Next, a group of elderly volunteers participating in a socializing group evaluated the questionnaire for comprehension. The level of comprehension for each item was identified on a Likert scale, ranging from 0 to 5. The questionnaire was considered easy to understand by most participants (95%), with a mean of 4.75 (±0.11) points for each item.
conclusionThe instrument showed acceptable psychometric qualities for screening fall risk among the elderly population. Future studies shall investigate different validation aspects of construct for this measure.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.