↓ Skip to main content

Psychometric properties of the original and short versions of the Falls Efficacy Scale-International (FES-I) in people with Parkinson’s disease

Overview of attention for article published in Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
30 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
117 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Psychometric properties of the original and short versions of the Falls Efficacy Scale-International (FES-I) in people with Parkinson’s disease
Published in
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, May 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12955-017-0689-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Stina B Jonasson, Maria H Nilsson, Jan Lexell

Abstract

Fear of falling is common in people with Parkinson's disease (PD) and is associated with an increased risk for future falls, activity limitations and a reduced quality of life. The Falls Efficacy Scale-International (FES-I) assesses fear of falling conceptualized as concerns about falling. The original FES-I has good psychometric properties in people with PD, but whether this applies also for the short version of FES-I remains to be shown. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the psychometric properties of the short FES-I and to compare these with the original FES-I in the same sample of people with PD. The investigated psychometric properties included known groups validity, data completeness, scaling assumptions, targeting and reliability. A postal survey, which included the original, full-length FES-I, was distributed to 174 people with PD. Responders received a second survey after two weeks. From these data, short FES-I total scores were calculated by extracting the items that are included in the short version of the scale. Median age and PD duration of the 101 responders (43% women) were 73 and 5 years, respectively. The original as well as the short FES-I scores were able to discriminate (p < 0.001) between groups with and without fear of falling, activity avoidance, falls, near falls, and with various self-rated PD severity, respectively. Both versions of FES-I had a high level of data completeness (0.7 to 0.9% missing item responses). Scaling assumptions were acceptable for the original as well as the short FES-I. While the short FES-I had 19% floor effect, the original version was better targeted. Both versions were reliable and obtained high values for internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha >0.8) and test-retest reliability (Intraclass Correlation Coefficient > 0.9). Both the original and short FES-I revealed generally good psychometric properties in people with PD, although the original scale was better targeted. Due to the higher floor effect in the short FES-I, the present findings favors using the original, full-length FES-I in longitudinal follow-ups, intervention studies and clinical practice when addressing concerns about falling.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 117 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 117 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 22 19%
Student > Master 20 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 8%
Other 6 5%
Librarian 4 3%
Other 22 19%
Unknown 34 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 35 30%
Medicine and Dentistry 17 15%
Sports and Recreations 7 6%
Neuroscience 4 3%
Computer Science 3 3%
Other 12 10%
Unknown 39 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 June 2017.
All research outputs
#17,897,310
of 22,977,819 outputs
Outputs from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#1,511
of 2,185 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#226,322
of 316,427 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#47
of 69 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,977,819 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,185 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 316,427 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 69 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.