ArticleBMC geriatrics2026
Psychometric properties of the Chinese version of the falls risk perception scale among community-dwelling elderly.
Article in BMC geriatrics, 2026. 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.
- "I don't want to be a burden": the double-edged role of filial piety in fall-risk perception among community-dwelling older adults in China.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEffective fall prevention requires accurate risk perception assessment. There remains a paucity of validated measurement tool adapted to China’s cultural context. This cross-cultural validation study aimed to evaluate the psychometric properties of the Chinese version of falls risk perception questionnaire (RPQ) among community-dwelling elderly.
methodsUsing a standard translation-backward method, the original English version of RPQ was translated into Chinese (Mandarin). Between March 2023 and October 2023, a convenient sampling of 300 elderly individuals was recruited from one community in Quzhou, China to test internal consistency, split-half reliability, content validity, structure validity, and the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) of this scale.
resultsA total of 272 patients (91.33%) completed questionnaires. The Chinese version of RPQ includes 16 items in total. Exploratory factor analysis extracted three factors, with a cumulative variance contribution rate of 63.32%. It achieved Cronbach’s alphas 0.874, McDonald’s omega coefficient 0.884 and the test-retest reliability 0.907, respectively, for the full scale. The scale-level content validity index was 0.875, and the item-level content validity index ranged from 0.833 to 1.000. Using the Falls Efficacy Scale-International (FES-I) as a benchmark, the correlation coefficient was 0.669. ROC analysis examined the correspondence between perceived risk and prior fall experience, with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.562 (95% CI 0.487–0.637). However, its accuracy in predicting actual fall risk is limited as it is primarily intended for assessing perceived risk.
conclusionThe Chinese version of RPQ demonstrated acceptable reliability and validity among community-dwelling elderly. It can be used to evaluate fall risk perception among this population. However, the scale should not be used to predict actual fall events, as ROC analysis indicated limited predictive accuracy.
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.