Assessment of the Construct and Criterion Validity Between Fall Risk Screening Measures (M-CTSIB VS TUG Test)_Research_Data

Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to assess fall risk screening tools’ correlation between tests that yield similar results and to compare the accuracy of screeners in predicting fall risk within the geriatric population.
Method: An experimental validity study was conducted evaluating the Timed Up and Go (TUG) and modified clinical test of sensory integration and balance (m-CTSIB) within a group of 20 elderly individuals. The m-CTSIB was measured by both an accelerometer and force plate simultaneously. The subjects’ history of falls was recorded, which categorized individuals into “faller” and “non-faller” groups.
Results: The results of the m-CTSIB and Timed Up and Go were not significantly correlated, suggesting that the two measures most likely assess different factors contributing to an individual's fall risk. Neither screening measure was successful in predicting fall history, which indicates reported fall history may not be accurate representations of an individual's objective balance performance. The accelerometer and force plate demonstrated a significant correlation in limited conditions of the m-CTSIB supporting encouraging validity specific to more challenging balance conditions.
Conclusions: This study demonstrates the importance of a more comprehensive approach to mitigating fall risk within the elderly population. Self-reported fall history may not be a true representation of an individual's history or an accurate marker to compare an individual’s performance in objective balance measures. Multiple factors contribute to an individual's risk for falls, and it is necessary to take multiple elements into consideration, including objective and self-reported measures.