@article{ref1,
title="Falls efficacy instruments for community-dwelling older adults: a COSMIN-based systematic review",
journal="BMC geriatrics",
year="2021",
author="Tan, Chee Wee and Gleeson, Nigel and Xu, Tianma and Lane, Judith and Soh, Shawn Leng-Hsien",
volume="21",
number="1",
pages="e21-e21",
abstract="BACKGROUND: Falls efficacy is a widely-studied latent construct in community-dwelling older adults. Various self-reported instruments have been used to  measure falls efficacy. In order to be informed of the choice of the best  measurement instrument for a specific purpose, empirical evidence of the development  and measurement properties of falls efficacy related instruments is needed. <br><br>METHODS:  The Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Intruments  (COSMIN) checklist was used to summarise evidence on the development, content  validity, and structural validity of instruments measuring falls efficacy in  community-dwelling older adults. Databases including MEDLINE, Web of Science,  PsychINFO, SCOPUS, CINAHL were searched (May 2019). Records on the development of  instruments and studies assessing content validity or structural validity of falls  efficacy related scales were included. COSMIN methodology was used to guide the  review of eligible studies and in the assessment of their methodological quality. Evidence of content validity: relevance, comprehensiveness and comprehensibility and  unidimensionality for structural validity were synthesised. A modified GRADE  approach was applied to evidence synthesis. <br><br>RESULTS: Thirty-five studies, of which  18 instruments had been identified, were included in the review. High-quality  evidence showed that the Modified Falls Efficacy Scale (FES)-13 items (MFES-13) has  sufficient relevance, yet insufficient comprehensiveness for measuring falls  efficacy. Moderate quality evidence supported that the FES-10 has sufficient  relevance, and MFES-14 has sufficient comprehensibility. Activities-specific Balance  Confidence (ABC) Scale-Simplified (ABC-15) has sufficient relevance in measuring  balance confidence supported by moderate-quality evidence. Low to very low-quality  evidence underpinned the content validity of other instruments. High-quality  evidence supported sufficient unidimensionality for eight instruments (FES-10,  MFES-14, ABC-6, ABC-15, ABC-16, Iconographical FES (Icon-FES), FES-International  (FES-I) and Perceived Ability to Prevent and Manage Fall Risks (PAPMFR)). <br><br>CONCLUSION: Content validity of instruments to measure falls efficacy is  understudied. Structural validity is sufficient for a number of widely-used  instruments. Measuring balance confidence is a subset of falls efficacy. Further  work is needed to investigate a broader construct for falls efficacy.<p /> <p>Language: en</p>",
language="en",
issn="1471-2318",
doi="10.1186/s12877-020-01960-7",
url="http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12877-020-01960-7"
}