Cultural adaptation and validation of the Arabic short version of the Iconographical Falls Efficacy Scale (Icon-FES): Assessing concern about falling among older adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Concern about falling is a significant issue among older adults, affecting their quality of life and functional independence. Culturally adapted and validated assessment tools are essential for accurately evaluating concern about falling. This study aimed to translate, cross-culturally adapt, and validate the Arabic short version of the Iconographical Falls Efficacy Scale (Icon-FES). Methods The translation and cultural adaptation process followed established guidelines. Structural validity was assessed using exploratory factor analysis (EFA). Internal consistency reliability, test–retest reliability, convergent validity, and known-groups validity of the scale were evaluated. Results A total of 123 community-dwelling older adults (mean age 69.54 ± 3.48 years; 53.7% male) participated. The Arabic short version of Icon-FES demonstrated strong structural validity, with EFA supporting a unidimensional structure accounting for 73.47% of the variance. It exhibited high internal consistency (Cronbach’s α = 0.95) and excellent test–retest reliability (ICC = 0.97). Convergent validity was confirmed through significant correlations with the Arabic Falls Efficacy Scale-International (FES-I; r s = 0.73, p < 0.001), Single Leg Stance (SLS; r s = − 0.34, p < 0.001), and Five Times Sit-to-Stand Test (5TSTS; r s = 0.44, p < 0.001). Known-groups validity showed higher scores in females, those with lower education, and a history of falls. Conclusions The Arabic short version of Icon-FES is a reliable and valid tool for assessing concern about falling among community-dwelling older adults. It offers an innovative approach through culturally adapted visual elements that could enhance applicability, enabling accurate assessment and supporting targeted interventions among Arabic-speaking older adults.
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 | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".