Nancy Edwards1, Donna Lockett. 1. School of Nursing, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. nancy.edwards@uottawa.ca
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study examined the psychometric properties of a modified falls-efficacy scale (FES) that included more challenging activities of daily living items and made reference to the presence or absence of enabling assistive devices that are part of the built environment. METHOD: Baseline data from a longitudinal study among a cohort of 551 community-living seniors was used to generate data to inform the current report. Data for this study was collected in seniors' homes and apartments in two neighbouring cities in Canada, Ottawa and Gatineau. Measurements included a modified falls self-efficacy scale, various health and demographic measures. RESULTS: Factor analysis of the instrument revealed a two-factor solution, explaining 60.3% of the variance. The two emerging subscales were: Subscale 1--basic activities of daily living (ADLs), and subscale 2--challenging ADLs. The modified FES demonstrated greater internal consistency and better response variability than Tinetti's original FES. CONCLUSIONS: Adding more challenging ADL items and specifying use of assistive devices while undertaking the ADL may increase the FES' ability to distinguish between participants with varying degrees of mobility or health impairment. Recommendations for future research are offered and implications for use are discussed.
PURPOSE: This study examined the psychometric properties of a modified falls-efficacy scale (FES) that included more challenging activities of daily living items and made reference to the presence or absence of enabling assistive devices that are part of the built environment. METHOD: Baseline data from a longitudinal study among a cohort of 551 community-living seniors was used to generate data to inform the current report. Data for this study was collected in seniors' homes and apartments in two neighbouring cities in Canada, Ottawa and Gatineau. Measurements included a modified falls self-efficacy scale, various health and demographic measures. RESULTS: Factor analysis of the instrument revealed a two-factor solution, explaining 60.3% of the variance. The two emerging subscales were: Subscale 1--basic activities of daily living (ADLs), and subscale 2--challenging ADLs. The modified FES demonstrated greater internal consistency and better response variability than Tinetti's original FES. CONCLUSIONS: Adding more challenging ADL items and specifying use of assistive devices while undertaking the ADL may increase the FES' ability to distinguish between participants with varying degrees of mobility or health impairment. Recommendations for future research are offered and implications for use are discussed.