ArticleBMC geriatrics2023
Psychometric evaluation of the Protection Motivation Theory scale in assessing fall protection motivation among older adults to reduce fall risk.
Article in BMC geriatrics, 2023. 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
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 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundProtection Motivation Theory could be another potential and good framework that addresses essential elements in a behavioural change leading to positive fall protective behaviours. The positive behavioural change could reduce the risk of falls and improve the quality of life of the older community. The study aims to evaluate the reliability and validity of the culturally adapted Protection Motivation Theory scale for older adults' fall protection motivation or protective behaviours to reduce fall risk.
methodsA cross-sectional study was conducted to establish a psychometric instrument validation. A total of 389 participants aged 55 years and above were included. The study was conducted in Sarawak, Malaysia, from November 2021 to January 2022 in two phases, translation of the PMT Scale, cross-cultural adaptation, face validation and pre-testing of the PMT Scale. The participants were selected using multistage random sampling in a primary healthcare clinic. Data entry and statistical analysis were performed using IBM SPSS version 26 for exploratory factor analysis and SmartPLS version 3.3.7 for confirmatory factor analysis using partial least square structural equation modelling.
resultsThe Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin value was 0.760, Bartlett's sphericity test was significant and the total variance explained was 61%. It identified 31 items within eight dimensions of the Protection Motivation Theory scale. The Higher Order Constructs' measurement model indicates that the convergent and discriminant validity were established (Cronbach's alpha and composite reliability: ≥ 0.740; average variance extracted: 0.619 to 0.935 and Henseler's Heterotrait-Monotrait criterion for all constructs' discriminant validity: < 0.9). Test-retest for the intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.745. The model's coefficient of determination demonstrated R
conclusionOverall, the Protection Motivation Theory Scale has established its reliability and validity for assisting older adults in the community. The Protection Motivation Theory Scale could be used in fall prevention interventions by promoting fall protective behaviours to reduce fall risk among community-dwelling older adults. The scale could assist healthcare providers in assessing the intention of older adults to use fall protective behaviours to reduce fall risk and serve as an alternative reference in developing fall prevention education in a fall prevention strategy.
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.