Falls efficacy is a widely studied construct. The understanding of falls efficacy has evolved over time. Falls efficacy was initially perceived to be suitably used as a measure of fear of falling. However, further research suggested that falls efficacy and fear of falling are distinct constructs, and therefore, would be inappropriate to be used as a proxy. Instead, some researchers posited that falls efficacy is synonymous with balance confidence. Falls efficacy has been conventionally understood as the perceived ability of individuals to perform activities without losing balance or falling. A recently conducted systematic review by the authors on existing falls efficacy related measures had revealed a fresh perspective of recognising falls efficacy as a perceived ability to manage a threat of a fall. Falls efficacy, with a broadened interpreted construct, relates to the individual’s perceived self-efficacy of performing necessary actions needed in different scenarios, including pre-fall, near-fall, fall-landing and completed fall. The conventional interpretation of falls efficacy needs a rethinking of perspective. An extended understanding of falls efficacy would provide an integral approach towards improving the agency of individual to deal with falls and would enhance person-centred care.

No abstract

Background Falls efficacy is a widely-studied latent construct in community-dwelling older adults. Various self-reported instruments have been used to measure falls efficacy. In order to be informed of the choice of the best measurement instrument for a specific purpose, empirical evidence of the development and measurement properties of falls efficacy related instruments is needed. Methods The Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Intruments (COSMIN) checklist was used to summarise evidence on the development, content validity, and structural validity of instruments measuring falls efficacy in community-dwelling older adults. Databases including MEDLINE, Web of Science, PsychINFO, SCOPUS, CINAHL were searched (May 2019). Records on the development of instruments and studies assessing content validity or structural validity of falls efficacy related scales were included. COSMIN methodology was used to guide the review of eligible studies and in the assessment of their methodological quality. Evidence of content validity: relevance, comprehensiveness and comprehensibility and unidimensionality for structural validity were synthesised. A modified GRADE approach was applied to evidence synthesis. Results Thirty-five studies, of which 18 instruments had been identified, were included in the review. High-quality evidence showed that the Modified Falls Efficacy Scale (FES)-13 items (MFES-13) has sufficient relevance, yet insufficient comprehensiveness for measuring falls efficacy. Moderate quality evidence supported that the FES-10 has sufficient relevance, and MFES-14 has sufficient comprehensibility. Activities-specific Balance Confidence (ABC) Scale–Simplified (ABC-15) has sufficient relevance in measuring balance confidence supported by moderate-quality evidence. Low to very low-quality evidence underpinned the content validity of other instruments. High-quality evidence supported sufficient unidimensionality for eight instruments (FES-10, MFES-14, ABC-6, ABC-15, ABC-16, Iconographical FES (Icon-FES), FES–International (FES-I) and Perceived Ability to Prevent and Manage Fall Risks (PAPMFR)). Conclusion Content validity of instruments to measure falls efficacy is understudied. Structural validity is sufficient for a number of widely-used instruments. Measuring balance confidence is a subset of falls efficacy. Further work is needed to investigate a broader construct for falls efficacy.

Background: This article presents a critical reflection on the application of the ‘researcher as instrument’ concept within a study employing the nominal group technique. Twelve community-dwelling older adults were recruited to generate a list of items for a new patient-reported outcome measure on perceived ability to recover balance. The ontological position and epistemological stance of the first author are presented to provide a philosophical context of his lens and biases of his reflection. Aim: The article aims to share reflective insights into the process of taking the role of researcher as instrument, to highlight the concept’s strengths and limitations for other researchers and demonstrate how it is applied from the perspectives of a physiotherapist conducting person-centred research with older clients. Conclusions: Essential practice skills such as reflectivity and reflexivity are necessary for a researcher as an instrument to build a trusting relationship with participants in person-centred research. Novice researchers should explore their philosophical orientation to develop their research methodology and methods. Implications for practice: Researcher as instrument can be applied to conduct the nominal group technique In person-centred research, researchers need to critically reflect on their roles to build trust with participants during the planning and delivery of their methods, being reflective and reflexive Consideration of one’s ontological and epistemological position allows growth in research learning