The reliability of four standardized concern for falling scales among adults with a major lower extremity amputation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: More than 52.4% of people with a lower extremity amputation (PLEA) will fall at least once each year. Previously established standardized scales that evaluate a concern for falling (CFF) were developed primarily among community-dwelling older adults. The reliability of commonly used scales to evaluate a CFF among PLEA is needed. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate test-retest relative and absolute reliability, and agreement of the Modified Survey of Activities and Fear of Falling in the Elderly (mSAFFE), Falls Efficacy Scale - International (FES-I), Consequences of Falling (COF) Scale, Perceived Control Over Falling (PCOF) Scale, and Perceived Ability to Manage Falls (PAMF) Scale among PLEA. DESIGN: Web-based cross-sectional repeated-measures study. SETTING: Rehabilitation hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Adults with a transtibial or transfemoral level amputation, who had completed a prosthetic rehabilitation program, and at minimum of 1 year using a prosthesis for ambulation were recruited after regularly scheduled appointments (N = 22, mean age ± SD, 63.5 ± 12.9 years). INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Initial and re-test scores on the mSAFFE, FES-I, COF, PCOF, and PAMF. RESULTS: Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) demonstrated excellent relative reliability of the mSAFFE (ICC = 0.92, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.82-0.97), good relative reliability of the FES-I (ICC = 0.87, 95% CI: 0.70-0.94), and fair relative reliability of the COF (ICC = 0.78, 95% CI: 0.53-0.90) and PAMF (ICC = 0.73, 95% CI: 0.46-0.88) scales. The ICC value of the PCOF scale could not be validly calculated and was not further analyzed. Calculated standard error of measurement values for the mSAFFE, FES-I, COF, and PAMF scales were small in magnitude, and Bland-Altman graphs demonstrated good agreement of initial and re-test scores for all scales. CONCLUSION: This study provides initial evidence on the suitability and reliable use of the mSAFFE, FES-I, COF, and PAMF scales within this population. Further evaluation of the validity of these scales is needed.
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 | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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".