Test-retest reliability, internal consistency, construct validity and factor structure of a falls risk perception questionnaire in older adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a prospective cohort study.
Janelle Gravesande, Julie Richardson, Lauren Griffith and 1 others
PMID 31827899WHAT IT FOUND
A questionnaire about perceived fall risk gave similar answers when repeated in person or by phone, and its scores lined up with fear of falling.
In 30 older adults with type 2 diabetes, its proposed question groups could not be checked.
Key findings
01When repeated in person and by phone, the RPQ gave similar total scores, with an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.78 in person and 0.82 by phone after imputation.
02The overall RPQ items moved together, with Cronbach's alpha of 0.78, and total scores correlated moderately with fear-of-falling scores, r = 0.52.
03The proposed subscale structure could not be tested, and sampling adequacy was 0.35.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
Only 30 participants were enrolled, recruited from exercise programs and a newspaper advertisement, so they may not represent all older adults with type 2 diabetes. Most participants were 66-75 years, with fewer 55-65 and 76-85, so results may apply less to older cohorts. At phone follow-up, 3 participants were lost at time 3 and 4 at time 4, reducing power for phone reliability, although missing data were imputed and sensitivity analyses did not change the intraclass correlation. The proposed subscale structure could not be tested because sampling adequacy was 0.35, below 0.50. Test-retest intervals varied, including some greater than 7 days, although sensitivity analyses removing long intervals did not change the intraclass correlation. The questionnaire was tested only in community-dwelling adults with type 2 diabetes, so it does not show the same results in other populations.
The easy way to misread this
Do not assume the questionnaire measures five separate fall-risk perception subscales. The study could not test its structure because the sample was too small, and it was limited to 30 community-dwelling adults with type 2 diabetes.