4.6 Article

Falls Efficacy Scale-International: A Cross-Sectional Validation in People With Multiple Sclerosis

Journal

ARCHIVES OF PHYSICAL MEDICINE AND REHABILITATION
Volume 94, Issue 5, Pages 883-889

Publisher

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.apmr.2012.10.034

Keywords

Accidental falls; Multiple sclerosis; Rehabilitation

Funding

  1. National Health and Medicine Research Council

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To evaluate psychometric properties of 16-item and 7-item Falls Efficacy Scale-International (FES-I) in people with multiple sclerosis (MS). Design: Validation and prospective cohort study. Setting: People with MS living in metropolitan areas. Participants: Community-dwelling people with MS (N=169; aged 21-73y) who were referred to Multiple Sclerosis Australia for physiotherapy assessment. Interventions: Not applicable. Main Outcome Measures: FES-I scores and a range of sociodemographic, physical, and neuropsychological measures. Results: The mean score for the 16-item FES-I was 34.9 +/- 11.2, and the mean score for the 7-item FES-I was 14.7 +/- 4.7. FES-I total scores were normally distributed: skewness of .35 (SEM=.19) for the 16-item and .47 (SEM .19) for the 7-item FES-I, indicating the absence of floor and ceiling effects. Internal reliability was excellent, with Cronbach's alpha values of .94 (16-item) and .86 (7-item). Rasch analyses indicated that the structure and measurement properties were better for the 7-item FES-I than for the 16-item FES-I. Construct validity of both scales was supported by sensitivity to group differences relating to demographic characteristics and fall-risk factors. Conclusions: The findings indicate that both 16-item and 7-item versions of the FES-I provide valuable information about the fear of falling in people with MS. However, the 7-item version of FES-I has better psychometric properties in people with MS. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 2013;94:883-9 (C) 2013 by the American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available