ArticleRoyal Society open science2019
Does misjudgement in a stepping down paradigm predict falls in an older population?
Article in Royal Society open science, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Misalignment Between Perceived and Actual Ability on a Balance Beam Walking Task.Journal of motor behavior · 2026Article
- Misalignment between perceived and actual ability on a balance beam walking task.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- Factors associated with proximal femoral fractures in older adults during hospital stay: a cross-sectional study.BMJ quality & safety · 2025Observational
- Aberrant decision-making as a risk factor for falls in aging.Frontiers in aging neuroscience · 2024Review
- The influence of postural threat on strategy selection in a stepping-down paradigm.Scientific reports · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Although measures of actual and perceived physical ability appear to predict falls in older adults, a disparity between these two, also known as misjudgement, may even better explain why some older adults fall, while their peers with similar abilities do not. Therefore, we investigated whether adding a misjudgement term improved prediction of future falls. Besides conventional measures of actual (physical measures) and perceived abilities (questionnaires), we used a stepping down paradigm to quantify behavioural misjudgement. In a sample of 55 older adults (mean age 74.5 (s.d. = 6.6) years, 33 females and 20 fallers over a 10-month follow-up period), we tested the added value of a misjudgement term and of a stepping-down task by comparing experimental Bayesian logistic-regression models to a default null model, which was composed of the conventional measures: Falls Efficacy Scale international and QuickScreen. Our results showed that the default null model fitted the data most accurately; however, the accuracy of all models was low (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) ≤ 0.65). This indicates that neither a misjudgement term based on conventional measures, nor on behavioural measures improved the prediction of future falls in older adults (Bayes Factor
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.