Cross-cultural adaptation of the Taiwan Chinese version of the Falls Efficacy Scale-International for community-dwelling elderly individuals

BACKGROUND: The Falls Efficacy Scale-International (FES-I) is a commonly used questionnaire to evaluate concerns about falling. We adapted a Taiwan Chinese version (FES-I(TC)) and evaluated its reliability and validity in community-dwelling elderly individuals. The discriminative validity was tested in relation to several known risk factors for fear of falling (FOF). METHODS: The questionnaire was adapted through translation, back-translation, and expert review processes. A convenience sample of 135 community-dwelling elderly individuals (at least 60 years old) completed the adapted questionnaire, and 31 of them had a retest within 7–10 days. Cronbach’s α and an intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) were used to evaluate the internal consistency and test–retest reliability. Principal component factor analysis was performed to assess the factor-construct validity. The discriminative validity was tested in relation to demographic features, fall-related history and performances on three functional tests: timed up and go, four-stage balance and 30-s chair stand tests. Effect sizes were computed. Correlation coefficients between physical functional performance and FES-I(TC) scores were computed. Receiver operating characteristic curves were used to determine the cutoff point for the score to differentiate high and low concern of falling. RESULTS: The FES-I(TC) questionnaire had high internal consistency (Cronbach’s α = 0.94) and excellent test–retest reliability (ICC = 0.94). Principal component factor analysis yielded a two-factor model, with several items requiring high demand on postural control loading on factor 2. FES-I(TC) scores discriminated individuals with different ages, reporting FOF, reporting falls in the past year and using walking aids. However, FES-I(TC) scores did not differ between the participants who were at risk of falling and those who were not at risk based on functional test performance and there was no correlation found between them. CONCLUSION: The FES-I(TC) was highly reliable and had adequate construct and discriminative validity. The lack of correlation between FES-I(TC) scores and functional test performance implied the presence of FOF even in individuals with good functional performance. Further follow up studies are warranted to verify the predictive validity of the FES-I(TC).