Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
PURPOSE: To assess the measurement properties of the Falls Efficacy Scale-International (FES-I) in patients after a hip fracture aged ≥ 65 years. METHODS: In a sample of 100 patients, we examined the structural validity, internal consistency and construct validity. For the structural validity a confirmatory factor analysis was carried out. For construct validity predetermined hypotheses were tested. In a second sample of 21 older patients the inter-rater reliability was evaluated. RESULTS: The factor analysis yielded strong evidence that the FES-I is uni-dimensional in patients with a hip fracture; the Cronbach's alpha was 0.94. When testing the reliability, the intra-class correlation coefficient was 0.72, while the Standard Error of Measurement was 6.4 and the Smallest Detectable Change was 17.7 (on a scale from 16 to 64). The Spearman correlation of the FES-I with the one-item fear of falling instrument was high (r = 0.68). The correlation was moderate with instruments measuring functional performance constructs and low with instruments measuring psychological constructs. CONCLUSIONS: Reliability and structural validity of the FES-I in patients after a hip fracture are good. The construct validity appears more closely related to functional performance constructs than to psychological constructs, suggesting that the concept measured by the FES-I may not capture all aspects of fear of falling. IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATION: The Falls Efficacy Scale-International (FES-I), which is commonly used to measure fear of falling in community-dwelling older persons, can also be used to assess fear of falling in patients after a hip fracture. The reliability and the structural validity of the FES-I for these hip patients are good, whereas the construct validity of the FES-I is not optimal. The FES-I may not capture all aspects of fear of falling and may be more closely related to functional performance than to psychological concepts such as anxiety.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Visschedijk et al. (2015) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: