Development and validation of a French Canadian version of the falls Behavioral (FaB) Scale
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To develop a French Canadian version of the Falls Behavioral (FaB) Scale and examine its psychometric properties. METHODS: The FaB was adapted in French Canadian (FaB-FC) and validated according to standard guidelines for cross-cultural adaptation of questionnaires. The internal consistency and construct validity of the FaB-FC were studied among 64 community-dwelling adults aged 60 and over. The concurrent validity and test-retest reliability of the FaB-FC were respectively examined among subsamples including 31 bilingual and 33 unilingual participants. RESULTS: The FaB-FC showed good concurrent validity with the original FaB (ICC2 = 0.94; 0.87-0.97), as well as good test-retest reliability (ICC2 = 0.94; 0.88-0.97). The FaB-FC also demonstrated high internal consistency (α = 0.91). Moreover, analyses showed significant associations of the FaB-FC scores with fear of falling and balance confidence scores, attesting to its construct validity. CONCLUSION: This study provides evidence that the FaB-FC has sound psychometric properties. Since falls are associated with multiple risk factors, including behavioral factors, the FaB-FC is undoubtedly a relevant assessment tool for clinicians and researchers working toward fall prevention among French-speaking community-dwelling seniors. IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATION: Fall-related behaviors should be addressed in the assessment of community-dwelling seniors' fall risks. Like the original FaB, the French Canadian version of the tool (FaB-FC) is valid and reliable for assessing fall-related behaviors. The FaB-FC is a relevant complementary assessment tool for identifying seniors at risk for falls. The FaB-FC could also be useful in guiding fall prevention interventions and measuring the impact of these interventions on seniors' behaviors.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".