Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31827899›Full record

ArticleArchives of physiotherapy2019

Test-retest reliability, internal consistency, construct validity and factor structure of a falls risk perception questionnaire in older adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a prospective cohort study.

Janelle Gravesande, Julie Richardson, Lauren Griffith, Fran Scott

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Archives of physiotherapy, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed
8.5field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

28 citing papers in PubMed, 55 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Quality of care experience- aged care consumers (QCE-ACC) in residential aged care: an assessment of construct validity.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Janelle Gravesande1School of Rehabilitation Science, McMaster University, Room 403, 1400 Main St., W. Hamilton, ON L8S 1C7 Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-9264-8805
Julie Richardson1School of Rehabilitation Science, McMaster University, Room 403, 1400 Main St., W. Hamilton, ON L8S 1C7 Canada.
Lauren Griffith1School of Rehabilitation Science, McMaster University, Room 403, 1400 Main St., W. Hamilton, ON L8S 1C7 Canada.
Fran Scott2Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, 1280 Main St., W. Hamilton, ON L8S 4K1 Canada.
McMaster University · CAImpact · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOlder adults with type 2 diabetes (DM2) are at increased risk of falling due to complications including: diabetic peripheral neuropathy, diabetic retinopathy, autonomic neuropathy and diabetic foot ulcers. The purpose of this study was to determine the test-retest reliability, internal consistency, construct validity and to perform factor analysis of a new falls Risk Perception Questionnaire (RPQ) in older community-dwelling adults with DM2.

methodsA prospective cohort of 30 community-dwelling older adults, ≥ 55 years, with DM2 was assembled. At baseline, perceived risk of falling, fear of falling and physical activity were measured. At time 2 (T2), at least 2 days later, perceived risk of falling was assessed again to determine the test-retest reliability of the RPQ. At time 3 (T3), approximately six weeks later, and time 4 (T4), at least 2 days after T3, perceived risk of falling was assessed by phone to determine the test-retest reliability of the RPQ when administered by phone.

resultsThe RPQ demonstrated excellent test-retest reliability when delivered in person (ICC = 0.78, 95% Confidence Interval, CI: 0.59-0.89) and by phone (ICC = 0.82, 95% CI: 0.65-0.91), good internal consistency (α = 0.78) and adequate construct validity (r = 0.52, 95% CI: 0.20-0.74,

conclusionGiven the good psychometric properties in this sample of persons with Diabetes, the RPQ has the potential to be used in clinical practice as a risk assessment and fall prevention tool. However, further testing needs to be done using a larger sample.

Indexed as

BalanceDiabetesFall riskOlder adultsRisk perception

Identifiers

PMID31827899
PMCPMC6886215
OpenAlexW2990489548

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.