Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 512

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 38 of the 38 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Measuring the Psychological Outcomes of Falling: A Systematic Review

Jørstad, Ellen C., Hauer, Klaus, Becker, Clemens, Lamb, Sarah E., on behalf of the ProFaNE Group·2005·Journal of the American Geriatrics Society

Abstract

The objectives were to identify fall‐related psychological outcome measures and to undertake a systematic quality assessment of their key measurement properties. A Cochrane review of fall‐prevention interventions in older adults was used to identify fall‐related psychological measurements. PubMed, CINAHL, and PsycINFO were systematically searched to identify instruments not used in trials and papers reporting the methodological quality of relevant measures. Reference lists of articles were searched for additional literature, and researchers were contacted. Two reviewers undertook quality extraction relating to content, population, reliability, validity, responsiveness, practicality, and feasibility. Twenty‐five relevant papers were identified. Twenty‐three measures met the inclusion criteria: six single‐item questions, Falls Efficacy Scale (FES), revised FES, modified FES, FES‐UK, Activities‐specific Balance and Confidence Scale (ABC), ABC‐UK, Confidence in maintaining Balance Scale, Mobility Efficacy Scale, adapted FES, amended FES, Survey of Activities and Fear of Falling in the Elderly (SAFFE), University of Illinois at Chicago Fear of Falling Measure, Concern about Falling Scale, Falls Handicap Inventory, modified SAFFE, Consequences of Falling Scale, and Concern about the Consequences of Falling Scale. There is limited evidence about the measurement properties of single‐item measures. Several multiitem measures obtained acceptable reliability and validity, but there is less evidence regarding responsiveness, practicality, and feasibility. Researchers should select measures based on the constructs they intend to study. Further research is needed to establish and compare the instruments' measurement properties.

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 · 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2005.53172.x

Cites

38 of 38 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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

Cites

1 retracted

Show all 38 references

Cited by

See all 512

Metadata

Authors
Jørstad, E. C., Hauer, K., Becker, C., Lamb, S. E., & on behalf of the ProFaNE Group
Venue
Journal of the American Geriatrics Society
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2005-02-24
Volume
53
Issue
3
Pages
501-510
ISSN
  • 0002-8614 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-5415
OpenAlex
W1755683197
Cited by
512
References
38
FWCI
3.26
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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Measuring the Psychological Outcomes of Falling: A Systematic Review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1532-5415.2005.53172.x
The paper
Jørstad, E. C., Hauer, K., Becker, C., Lamb, S. E., & on behalf of the ProFaNE Group. (2005). Measuring the Psychological Outcomes of Falling: A Systematic Review. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-5415.2005.53172.x

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.