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

Published: 17 June 2024| Version 1 | DOI: 10.17632/7rwdky9twc.1
Maxim Stgermain


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.


Steps to reproduce

Each test measured the following variables: TUG (time in seconds) m-CTSIB using the Bertec Portable Essential (sway velocity in degrees per second) and Sway Medical Application (Anteroposterior and mediolateral sway in degrees from level). Pearson's correlation (r-value) was calculated to determine construct validity between the Timed Up and Go and m-CTSIB to identify whether they assessed similar or unique components of an individual's risk for falling. A high, positive Pearson value would indicate that high scores on one measure are correlated with high scores on another measure, and the same would be true for low scores between measures. Two measures would be considered to have strong construct validity if one measure’s scores are strongly correlated with another. The construct validity of the measures will provide meaningful information to clinicians if they may be missing individuals at risk for falls only using one balance screening measure. The concurrent validity between the Bertec Portable Essential and Sway Medical accelerometer was also measured to assess if the accelerometer provides similar results to the more accepted and validated force plate measures. The same Pearson's correlation (r-value) was used to calculate if the Sway Medical accelerometer demonstrated it is able to yield comparable results to the Bertec Portable Essential. Each condition including composite scores was analyzed individually for similarities in results. Independent sample t tests were used to compare the means of two independent groups to determine if there is a significant difference between them. This was used to analyze the results of the self-reported survey questions and average scores in the balance screening measures. In addition, both measures have normative data to be used as the cut off criteria for passing or failing each screening. The Bertec force plate was used for passing or failing the m-CTSIB. Whether or not an individual passed or failed one or multiple screenings will be compared to their fall history to assess which test or combination of tests is most sensitive to detect fallers from non-fallers. These results will provide clinicians with more data on what objective tests or combination of tests can effectively screen individuals for fall risk.


Montclair State University


Fall in the Elderly