Test-retest reliability and sensitivity to change of a new fall risk assessment system: A pilot study

5Citations
Citations of this article
29Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Background: The new fall risk assessment (FRA) system is a composite and comprehensive assessment tool developed to predict the risk of falls. The aim of this pilot study was to examine the new FRA system’s test-retest reliability and sensitivity to change in community-dwelling older adults. Methods: This was an observational study with a test-retest design and an 8-week fall prevention exercise program. A sample of 28 community-dwelling older adults with a mean age of 73.0 years (range, 65–80 years) participated in the study. The new FRA system was administered twice within a 7-day period for test-retest reliability expressed as intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and standard error of measurement (SEM) assessment. Eighteen subjects of them completed the 8-week fall prevention exercise intervention to evaluate the new FRA system’s sensitivity to change. Results: In the evaluation of interrater reliability for the new FRA system, the ICC (95% confidence inter-val) of the total score was 0.77 (0.47–0.98), with good reliability. The SEM was 11.61 for the total FRA score. A good to excellent reliability was observed, with ICC levels of 0.73 to 0.91 for the 4 composite scores of the new FRA system. Following the 8-week exercise intervention, the mean total FRA score (effect size, 0.58) significantly increased (p=0.028). Conclusion: The new FRA system has generally moderate to excellent interrater reliability and reliable sensitivity to change in community-dwelling older adults. Our findings provide support for the reliability of the new FRA system in healthy older adults without a fall history.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Kim, M., Kim, S., & Won, C. W. (2018). Test-retest reliability and sensitivity to change of a new fall risk assessment system: A pilot study. Annals of Geriatric Medicine and Research, 22(2), 80–87. https://doi.org/10.4235/agmr.2018.22.2.80

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free