ArticleBMC geriatrics2024
Translation, validity and reliability of the fall risk scale for older adults.
Article in BMC geriatrics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionFalls in older adults are a common and serious threat to health and functional independence. It can cause psychological distress, inability to participate in activities of daily living, brain injury, fractures, and even death. The aim was to analyze the psychometric properties of the self-assessed fall risk scale (FRS) that measures the risk of falls in older adults in a central region of Chile, as well as to verify the concurrent validity against functional fitness tests. MATERIALS AND
methodsA descriptive cross-sectional study was carried out in 222 older adults (OA) [34 males and 188 females] with an age range of 65 to 85 years. The 13-item self-perceived fall risk scale (FRS) was validated. Anthropometric measures (weight, height and waist circumference) were assessed. Five functional fitness tests were measured (right and left hand grip strength, biceps curl, up-and-go, agility and 6-minute walk test). Validation was performed by construct validation [(exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA)] and concurrent validity.
resultsThe EFA revealed 4 factors in the FRS scale [1: fear of falling (variance 27.1%), 2: use of assistive devices (variance 10.6%), 3: loss of sensation (variance 9.3%), and 4: limited mobility (variance 8.3%)]. Factor loadings ranged from ∼ 0.50 to 0.83 across the 4 components. The Kaiser-Meyer Olkin sample adequacy test (KMO) reflected adequate adequacy (KMO = 0.79, chi-square (X2) = 498.806, gl = 78, p = 0.00). The CFA showed a satisfactory final fit [chi-square (X2) = 126.748, Root mean squared error of approximation (RMSEA) = 0.042, Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) = 0.946, Comparative fit index (CFI) = 0.935 y Normed fit index (NFI) = 0.90. The relationships between the FRS scale and functional fitness tests (right and left hand grip strength, biceps curl, up-and-go, agility and 6-minute walk test) ranged from low to moderate (r= -0.23 to 0.41).
conclusionThe FRS scale showed acceptable validity and reliability in older adults in central region of Chile. It is expected that this scale will be useful for assessing fall risk in clinical and epidemiological settings in the aging Chilean population.
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.