Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,057

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Fear of Falling and Fall-Related Efficacy in Relationship to Functioning Among Community-Living Elders

Tinetti, M. E., De Leon, C. F. M., Doucette, J. T., Baker, D. I.·1994·Journal of Gerontology
DOI 10.1093/geronj/49.3.m140
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The relationships of fear of falling and fall-related efficacy with measures of basic and instrumental activities of daily living (ADL-IADL) and physical and social functioning were evaluated in a cohort of community-living elderly persons. METHODS: Sociodemographic, medical, psychological, and physical performance (e.g., gait speed, timed hand function) measures were administered, during an in-home assessment, to a probability sample of 1,103 residents of New Haven, Connecticut, who were > or = 72 years of age. Falls and injuries in the past year, fear of falling, and responses to the Falls Efficacy Scale were also ascertained. The three dependent variables included a 10-item ADL-IADL scale, an 8-item social activity scale, and a scale of relative physical activity level. RESULTS: Among cohort members, 57% denied fear of falling whereas 24% acknowledged fear but denied effect on activity; 19% acknowledged avoiding activities because of fear of falling. Twenty-four percent of recent fallers vs 15% of nonfallers acknowledged this activity restriction (chi 2 = 13.1; p < .001). Mean fall-related efficacy score among the cohort was 84.9 (SD 20.5), 79.8 (SD 23.4), and 88.1 (SD 17.9) among fallers and nonfallers, respectively (p < or = .0001). Fall-related efficacy proved a potent independent correlate of ADL-IADL (partial correlation = .265, p < .001); physical (partial correlation = .234, p < .001); and social (partial correlation = .088, p < .01), functioning in multiple regression models after adjusting for sociodemographic, medical, psychological, and physical performance covariates as well as history of recent falls and injuries. Fear of falling was only marginally related (p = .05) with ADL-IADL functioning and was not associated with higher level physical or social functioning. CONCLUSIONS: The strong independent association between self-efficacy and function found in this study suggests that clinical programs in areas such as prevention, geriatric evaluation and management, and rehabilitation should attempt simultaneously to improve physical skills and confidence. Available knowledge of the factors influencing efficacy should guide the development of these efficacy-building programs.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/geronj/49.3.m140

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Tinetti, M. E., De Leon, C. F. M., Doucette, J. T., & Baker, D. I.
Venue
Journal of Gerontology
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
1994-05-01
Volume
49
Issue
3
Pages
M140-M147
ISSN
0022-1422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1093/geronj/49.3.m140
OpenAlex
W2151366317
Cited by
1,057
References
0
FWCI
35.92
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.