ArticleFrontiers in neurology2022
Reliability and Validity of the Composite Activity-Related Fall Risk Scale.
Article in Frontiers in neurology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Development and psychometric evaluation of an integrative Manual Muscle Test for patients with post-stroke hemiplegia.European journal of physical and rehabilitation medicine · 2025Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The newly developed Composite Activity-related Risk of Falls Scale (CARFS) is designed to measure composite activity-related risk of falls (CARF) in relation to the activity-specific fear of falling and physical behavior. This study tested the reliability and validity of the CARFS in older people with various health statuses and persons with stroke or spinal cord injury. Methods: Participants included 70 older adults, 38 persons with stroke, and 18 with spinal cord injury. They were first surveyed using a combined questionnaire including the CARFS and activity-specific balance confidence (ABC) scale in addition to items asking for personal and disease-related information, fall history, walking independence levels for examining internal consistency, ceiling and floor effects, and convergent validity in each participant group. One week after the initial survey, 33 older participants were reexamined using the CARFS to analyze test-retest reliability, where a minimal detectable change was found. Significance was set at α = 0.05 for all analyses. Results: The CARFS showed excellent test-retest reliability in the dimensions of fear of falling, physical behavior, and CARF [ICC (3,1) = 0.972, 0.994, and 0.994, respectively for their overall score], with a minimal detectable change of 3.944 in the older population. The internal consistency of CARFS items was excellent in the older participants, good in participants with stroke or spinal cord injury (Cronbach's alpha = 0.945, 0.843, 0.831 in each participant group, respectively). No ceiling and floor effects were demonstrated in the wide range of people. For the convergent validity, overall CARF score was significantly correlated with the average ABC score in each participant group (rho = -0.824, -0.761, and -0.601, respectively; Conclusion: The CARFS is a reliable and valid tool for measuring fall risk in older people and persons with stroke or spinal cord injury.
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.