Table 1
The demographics and of the participants.
| VARIABLES | TOTAL (n = 107) | FALLER (n = 49) | NON-FALLER (n = 58) | p VALUE |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age: years (mean ± SD) | 74.63 ± 6.73 | 74.82 ± 7.14 | 74.47 ± 6.41 | 0.790a |
| Gender: n of female (%) | 72 (67.30) | 36 (73.47) | 36 (62.07) | 0.210b |
| BMI: kg/m2 (mean ± SD) | 23.27 ± 3.39 | 23.61 ± 3.47 | 22.30 ± 3.32 | 0.346a |
| FOF-10: score (mean ± SD) | 4.21 ± 2.18 | 5.76 ± 2.04 | 2.90 ± 2.18 | <0.001a |
| TUG: s (mean ± SD) | 15.16 ± 5.49 | 18.16 ± 6.70 | 12.62 ± 1.99 | <0.001a |
| FES-I: scores (mean ± SD) | 33.29 ± 13.20 | 41.96 ± 11.49 | 25.97 ± 9.68 | <0.001a |
[i] Note: BMI, Body mass index; FOF-10, fear of falling 10-rating scale; TUG, time up and go test; FES-I; Falls Efficacy Scale International. a p-values were analyzed using the independent samples t –test, b using the Chi square test.
Table 2
Frequency and percentage of self-reported FOF-10 scores among participants.
| VARIABLES | TOTAL (n = 107) | FALLER (n = 49) | NON-FALLER (n = 58) | p VALUE |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| FOF-10 score: n (%) | ||||
| 1 | 1 (0.90) | 0 (0.00) | 1 (1.72) | <0.001a |
| 2 | 28 (26.20) | 3 (6.12) | 25 (43.10) | |
| 3 | 24 (22.40) | 3 (6.12) | 21 (36.21) | |
| 4 | 16 (1.50) | 10 (20.41) | 6 (10.34) | |
| 5 | 8 (7.50) | 5 (10.20) | 3 (5.17) | |
| 6 | 11 (10.30) | 11 (22.45) | 0 (0.00) | |
| 7 | 6 (5.60) | 5 (10.20) | 1 (1.72) | |
| 8 | 10 (9.30) | 9 (18.37) | 1 (1.72) | |
| 9 | 1 (0.90) | 1 (2.04) | 0 (0.00) | |
| 10 | 2 (1.90) | 2 (4.08) | 0 (0.00) |
[i] Note: a using the Chi square test.
Table 3
The correlation between the outcomes of FOF-10, FES-I, TUG, and number of falls.
| VARIABLES | FES-I (Score) | TUG (s) | NUMBER OF FALLS (Times) |
|---|---|---|---|
| (95%CI) | (95%CI) | (95%CI) | |
| FOF-10 (score) | 0.929** (0.885–0.953) | 0.738** (0.619–0.831) | 0.648** (0.499–0.754) |
| Number of falls (times) | 0.573** (0.412–0.712) | 0.502** (0.317–0.640) | |
| TUG (s) | 0.830** (0.732–0.894) |
[i] Note: FOF-10, fear of falling 10-rating scale; TUG, time up and go test; FES-I; Falls Efficacy Scale International.
**p-values < 0.001.
Table 4
The optimal cut-off score and predictive variables of the FOF-10 and standard measures to determine falls in older individuals.
| MEASURES | CUT-OFF SCORE | SENSITIVITY (%) | SPECIFICITY (%) | PPV (%) | NPV (%) | CORRECTLY CLASSIFY (%) | AUC (95%CI) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FOF-10 (score) | 4 | 87.66 | 81.03 | 86.84 | 76.81 | 80.37 | 0.8841 (0.8175–0.951) |
| FES-I (score) | 33 | 81.63 | 70.69 | 80.00 | 79.03 | 79.44 | 0.848 (0.771–0.925) |
| TUG (s) | 13.07 | 75.51 | 62.07 | 88.89 | 76.06 | 80.37 | 0.793 (0.701–0.886) |
[i] Note: FOF-10, fear of falling 10-rating scale; TUG, time up and go test; FES-I; Falls Efficacy Scale International; PPV, Positive predictive value; NPV, Negative predictive value; AUC, area under ROC curve.
Figure 1
Area under the ROC curve of the FOF-10 and standard measures.