Measurement of falls efficacy

Measurement of a latent construct is challenging because the latent ability is “unobservable”.

How do we know what is being measured is the intended construct to be measured? Unlike objectives measures like using a ruler to measure distance, or a weighing scale to measure weight, measuring psychological constructs needs sound theories, reasonable conceptual frameworks, and the measurement instruments should be adequately validated using measurement theories, such as classical test theory and item response theory.

There are growing concerns whether commonly used self-reported measurement instruments are adequately informing researchers and clinicians about the key construct of interest. McKenna et al. (2019) highlighted these issues succinctly and expressed that improper use could lead to incorrect (and possibly dangerous) conclusions.

A case in point refers to the measurement instruments designed to measure falls efficacy or fear of falling have been used interchangeably. The lackadaisical use have lead to authors conducting systematic reviews (e.g., Jorstad et al. (2006) and Moore et al. (2008)) facing significant challenges deciphering whether the studies were targeting falls efficacy or fear of falling. Several calls from researchers including Hughes et al (2015) for studies to clarify terminology and apply appropriate use measurement instruments for falls-related psychological concerns.

A systematic review conducted by Soh and colleagues (2021) identified 18 different falls efficacy-related measurement instruments. Majority focused on balance confidence. Some targeted falls efficacy as a multi-dimensional construct. Please refer to the page : “Measurements” for a list of falls efficacy and fear of falling measurement instruments and select the most appropriate tool when designing the research study.