Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
OBJECTIVES: Translation of the Spinal Cord Injury Falls Concern Scale (SCI-FCS), and investigation of test-retest reliability on item-level and total-score-level. DESIGN: Translation, adaptation and test-retest study. SETTING: A specialized rehabilitation setting in Norway. PARTICIPANTS: Fifty-four wheelchair users with a spinal cord injury. The median age of the cohort was 49 years, and the median number of years after injury was 13. Interventions/measurements: The SCI-FCS was translated and back-translated according to guidelines. Individuals answered the SCI-FCS twice over the course of one week. We investigated item-level test-retest reliability using Svensson's rank-based statistical method for disagreement analysis of paired ordinal data. For relative reliability, we analyzed the total-score-level test-retest reliability with intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC2.1), the standard error of measurement (SEM), and the smallest detectable change (SDC) for absolute reliability/measurement-error assessment and Cronbach's alpha for internal consistency. RESULTS: All items showed satisfactory percentage agreement (≥69%) between test and retest. There were small but non-negligible systematic disagreements among three items; we recovered an 11-13% higher chance for a lower second score. There was no disagreement due to random variance. The test-retest agreement (ICC2.1) was excellent (0.83). The SEM was 2.6 (12%), and the SDC was 7.1 (32%). The Cronbach's alpha was high (0.88). CONCLUSION: The Norwegian SCI-FCS is highly reliable for wheelchair users with chronic spinal cord injuries.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Roaldsen et al. (2015) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: