Home › Research › Clinical safety
Validity and sensitivity to change of the falls efficacy scales international to assess fear of falling in older adults with and without cognitive impairment
Hauer KA, Kempen GI, Schwenk M, Yardley L, Beyer N, Todd C, Oster P, Zijlstra GA.. Gerontology, 2010-10-22
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Background Measures of fear of falling have not yet been validated in patients with dementia, leaving a methodological gap that limits research in a population at high risk of falling and fall-related consequences. Objective The objectives of this study are to determine: (1) the validity of the 7-item Short Falls Efficacy Scale International (Short FES-I) in geriatric patients with and without cognitive impairment, and (2) the sensitivity to change of the 10-item Falls Efficacy Scale (FES), the 16-item FES-I and the 7-item Short FES-I in geriatric patients with dementia. Methods Cross-sectional data of community-dwelling older adults and geriatric rehabilitation patients (n = 284) collected during face-to-face interviews were used to determine construct and discriminant validity by testing for differences within variables related to fear of falling. Sensitivity to change was studied in an intervention study including patients with mild to moderate dementia (n = 130) as determined by standard response means (SRMs). Results The Short FES-I showed excellent construct and discriminant validity in the total group and subsamples according to cognitive status. Sensitivity to change was adequate to good in the FES (range SRM: 0.18-0.77) and FES-I (range SRM: 0.21-0.74), with the Short FES-I showing the highest peak sensitivity to change (range SRM: 0.18-0.91). Conclusions The Short FES-I is a valid measure to assess fear of falling in frail older adults with and without cognitive impairment, yet it may show floor effects in higher functioning older people. All scales, including the Short FES-I, were sensitive to detecting intervention-induced changes in concerns about falling in geriatric patients with dementia.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Hauer, K. A., Kempen, G. I., Schwenk, M., Yardley, L., Beyer, N., Todd, C., et al. (2011). Validity and sensitivity to change of the falls efficacy scales international to assess fear of falling in older adults with and without cognitive impairment. Gerontology. https://doi.org/10.1159/000320054
Vancouver
Hauer KA, Kempen GI, Schwenk M, Yardley L, Beyer N, Todd C, et al. Validity and sensitivity to change of the falls efficacy scales international to assess fear of falling in older adults with and without cognitive impairment. Gerontology. 2011. doi:10.1159/000320054. PMID: 20975251.
BibTeX
@article{hauer2011-20975251,
author = {Hauer, K. A. and Kempen, G. I. and Schwenk, M. and Yardley, L. and Beyer, N. and Todd, C. and Oster, P. and Zijlstra, G. A.},
title = {{Validity and sensitivity to change of the falls efficacy scales international to assess fear of falling in older adults with and without cognitive impairment}},
journal = {Gerontology},
year = {2011},
doi = {10.1159/000320054},
pmid = {20975251},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1159/000320054}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record names 8 authors; APA and Vancouver show the first six, BibTeX and the downloads carry all of them. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- Results The Short FES-I showed excellent construct and discriminant validity in the total group and subsamples according to cognitive status.
Study details
- Study designcross-sectional
- Participants284
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 52/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a snapshot of people at one point in time. Scored zero for effect reported and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 30 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 52 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Gerontology) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 4 / 12 | A snapshot of people at one point in time |
| Strength of evidence | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 1 / 5 | 2011 — within 20 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 2 / 4 | 284 participants |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 3 / 3 | Studied in people (participant count stated) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 20975251) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 30 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 30 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 52 out of 100. |
| Total | 52 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Related
Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.
Related studies in Clinical safety
Also tagged “controlled”
1,116 studies in the library carry the topic tag “controlled”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 1,116 tagged studies.