TY - JOUR
T1 - Measuring fall risk and predicting who will fall
T2 - Clinimetric properties of four fall risk assessment tools for residential aged care
AU - Barker, Anna L.
AU - Nitz, Jennifer C.
AU - Low Choy, Nancy L.
AU - Haines, Terry
PY - 2009/8
Y1 - 2009/8
N2 - Background. The purpose of this prospective cohort study was to describe the clinimetric evaluation of four fall risk assessment tools (FRATs) recommended in best practice guidelines for use in residential aged care (RAC). Methods. Eighty-seven residents, mean age 81.59 years(SD ± 10.69), participated. The Falls Assessment Risk and Management Tool (FARAM), Peninsula Health Fall Risk Assessment Tool (PHFRAT), Queensland Fall Risk Assessment Tool (QFRAT), and Melbourne Fall Risk Assessment Tool (MFRAT) were completed at baseline, and 2 and 4 months, and falls occurring in the 6 months after the baseline assessment were recorded. Interrater agreement (kappa), predictive accuracy (survival analysis and Youden Index), and fit to the Rasch model were examined. Twelve-month fall history formed the predictive accuracy reference. Results. Interrater risk classification agreement was high for the PHFRAT (κ =.84) and FARAM (κ =.81), and low for the QFRAT (κ =.51) and MFRAT (κ =.21). Survival analysis identified that 43%-66% of risk factors on each tool had no (p >.10) association with falls. No tool had higher predictive accuracy (Youden index) than the question, "has the resi dent fallen in past 12 months? "(p >. 05). All tools did not exhibit fit to the Rasch model, invalidating summing of risk factor scores to provide an overall risk score. Conclusion. The studied tools have poor clinimetric properties, casting doubt about their usefulness for identifying fall risk factors for those most at risk for falling and measuring fall risk in RAC.
AB - Background. The purpose of this prospective cohort study was to describe the clinimetric evaluation of four fall risk assessment tools (FRATs) recommended in best practice guidelines for use in residential aged care (RAC). Methods. Eighty-seven residents, mean age 81.59 years(SD ± 10.69), participated. The Falls Assessment Risk and Management Tool (FARAM), Peninsula Health Fall Risk Assessment Tool (PHFRAT), Queensland Fall Risk Assessment Tool (QFRAT), and Melbourne Fall Risk Assessment Tool (MFRAT) were completed at baseline, and 2 and 4 months, and falls occurring in the 6 months after the baseline assessment were recorded. Interrater agreement (kappa), predictive accuracy (survival analysis and Youden Index), and fit to the Rasch model were examined. Twelve-month fall history formed the predictive accuracy reference. Results. Interrater risk classification agreement was high for the PHFRAT (κ =.84) and FARAM (κ =.81), and low for the QFRAT (κ =.51) and MFRAT (κ =.21). Survival analysis identified that 43%-66% of risk factors on each tool had no (p >.10) association with falls. No tool had higher predictive accuracy (Youden index) than the question, "has the resi dent fallen in past 12 months? "(p >. 05). All tools did not exhibit fit to the Rasch model, invalidating summing of risk factor scores to provide an overall risk score. Conclusion. The studied tools have poor clinimetric properties, casting doubt about their usefulness for identifying fall risk factors for those most at risk for falling and measuring fall risk in RAC.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=67650649522&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1093/gerona/glp041
DO - 10.1093/gerona/glp041
M3 - Article
C2 - 19414508
AN - SCOPUS:67650649522
SN - 1079-5006
VL - 64
SP - 916
EP - 924
JO - Journals of Gerontology - Series A Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences
JF - Journals of Gerontology - Series A Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences
IS - 8
ER -