ArticleJournal of frailty, sarcopenia and falls2025
Development and Initial Validation of a Brief Multidimensional Falls Efficacy Scale.
Article in Journal of frailty, sarcopenia and falls, 2025. 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.
- From research to practice: a pilot implementation study of a falls self-efficacy tool in a community hospital.Frontiers in health services · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To develop and evaluate the initial psychometric properties of the Multidimensional Falls Efficacy Scale (MdFES). Methods: Stage 1 involved content development and validation through literature review and expert consensus. Stage 2 included psychometric testing with 179 older adults. Analyses included exploratory factor analysis (EFA), internal consistency, construct validity, and ROC analysis for clinical cut-offs. Results: EFA supported a two-factor structure, explaining 65.4% of the variance. The MdFES showed good internal consistency (α = 0.84). Construct validity was supported by moderate correlations with the Activities-specific Balance Confidence scale (ρ = 0.51), the Balance Recovery Confidence scale (ρ = 0.67), and a negative correlation with the Short Falls Efficacy Scale-International (ρ = -0.46). ROC analyses demonstrated moderate discriminative ability for identifying fallers (AUC = 0.65), high concerns about falling (AUC = 0.73), and poor balance (AUC = 0.71). A cut-off score of ≤13 balanced sensitivity and specificity. Conclusion: The MdFES is a brief, valid instrument capturing the multidimensional nature of falls efficacy. It may support clinical screening and guide targeted intervention. Further research is needed to elucidate the value of the MdFES.
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.