FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W4242236536> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W4242236536 endingPage "1148" @default.
• W4242236536 startingPage "1147" @default.
• W4242236536 abstract "We certainly appreciate Muir and Speechley sharing their insights regarding the relative merits of cross-sectional and prospective research designs when investigating the extent to which a measurement tool can predict future faller status, and we agree that the cross-sectional design used in our study was not without its inherent limitations. We did acknowledge the design's shortcomings in the limitations section of the article. As also indicated, our study used the same type of design that has previously been used to predict faller status in other samples. 1 Shumway-Cook A. Baldwin M. Polissar N.L. Gruber W. Predicting the probability of falls in community-dwelling older adults. Phys Ther. 1997; 77: 812-819 Crossref PubMed Scopus (734) Google Scholar , 2 Shumway-Cook A. Brauer S. Woollacott M. Predicting the probability for falls in community-dwelling older adults using the timed up and go test. Phys Ther. 2000; 80: 896-903 PubMed Google Scholar , 3 Thomas J.I. Lane J.V. A pilot study to explore the predictive validity of 4 measures of falls risk in frail elderly patients. Arch Phys Med Rehab. 2005; 86: 1636-1640 Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (138) Google Scholar Commensurate with the views of some of these previous authors, we considered the use of a cross-sectional design to constitute a good first step in determining whether a clinical tool is associated with fall risk. Mann 4 Mann C.J. Observational research methods Research design II: cohort, cross sectional, and case-control studies. Emerg Med J. 2003; 20: 54-60 Crossref PubMed Scopus (751) Google Scholar also states that “cross sectional studies are the best way to determine prevalence and are useful at identifying associations that can then be more rigorously studied using a cohort study.” 4 Mann C.J. Observational research methods Research design II: cohort, cross sectional, and case-control studies. Emerg Med J. 2003; 20: 54-60 Crossref PubMed Scopus (751) Google Scholar (p57) In hindsight, we acknowledge that it may have been more appropriate to use this type of language, given this was our first attempt to investigate the predictive validity of the scale. We consider this study to be our first attempt to investigate this psychometric property and have every intention of publishing the findings of a second study using the more rigorous prospective design recommended by Muir and Speechley. Establishing Predictive Validity of the Fullerton Advanced Balance ScaleArchives of Physical Medicine and RehabilitationVol. 91Issue 7PreviewThe article by Hernandez and Rose1 in the December 2008 issue evaluated the Fullerton Advanced Balance (FAB) scale score in predicting of fall status in community-dwelling older adults. This is important because balance impairment is a known risk factor for falls, and clinical practice guidelines emphasize the importance of its assessment. Full-Text PDF" @default.
• W4242236536 created "2022-05-12" @default.
• W4242236536 creator A5002843447 @default.
• W4242236536 creator A5080936301 @default.
• W4242236536 date "2010-07-01" @default.
• W4242236536 modified "2023-09-30" @default.
• W4242236536 title "The Authors Respond" @default.
• W4242236536 doi "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2010.03.026" @default.
• W4242236536 hasPublicationYear "2010" @default.
• W4242236536 type Work @default.
• W4242236536 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W4242236536 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W4242236536 hasAuthorship W4242236536A5002843447 @default.
• W4242236536 hasAuthorship W4242236536A5080936301 @default.
• W4242236536 hasConcept C142052008 @default.
• W4242236536 hasConcept C142724271 @default.
• W4242236536 hasConcept C151730666 @default.
• W4242236536 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W4242236536 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W4242236536 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W4242236536 hasConcept C23131810 @default.
• W4242236536 hasConcept C2777267654 @default.
• W4242236536 hasConcept C2779473830 @default.
• W4242236536 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W4242236536 hasConcept C83867959 @default.
• W4242236536 hasConcept C86803240 @default.
• W4242236536 hasConceptScore W4242236536C142052008 @default.
• W4242236536 hasConceptScore W4242236536C142724271 @default.
• W4242236536 hasConceptScore W4242236536C151730666 @default.
• W4242236536 hasConceptScore W4242236536C15744967 @default.
• W4242236536 hasConceptScore W4242236536C17744445 @default.
• W4242236536 hasConceptScore W4242236536C199539241 @default.
• W4242236536 hasConceptScore W4242236536C23131810 @default.
• W4242236536 hasConceptScore W4242236536C2777267654 @default.
• W4242236536 hasConceptScore W4242236536C2779473830 @default.
• W4242236536 hasConceptScore W4242236536C71924100 @default.
• W4242236536 hasConceptScore W4242236536C83867959 @default.
• W4242236536 hasConceptScore W4242236536C86803240 @default.
• W4242236536 hasIssue "7" @default.
• W4242236536 hasLocation W42422365361 @default.
• W4242236536 hasOpenAccess W4242236536 @default.
• W4242236536 hasPrimaryLocation W42422365361 @default.
• W4242236536 hasRelatedWork W2227517379 @default.
• W4242236536 hasRelatedWork W2313076522 @default.
• W4242236536 hasRelatedWork W2748952813 @default.
• W4242236536 hasRelatedWork W2899084033 @default.
• W4242236536 hasRelatedWork W2976382042 @default.
• W4242236536 hasRelatedWork W3012235358 @default.
• W4242236536 hasRelatedWork W3216290709 @default.
• W4242236536 hasRelatedWork W4225272120 @default.
• W4242236536 hasRelatedWork W4283749807 @default.
• W4242236536 hasRelatedWork W2464797648 @default.
• W4242236536 hasVolume "91" @default.
• W4242236536 isParatext "false" @default.
• W4242236536 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W4242236536 workType "article" @default.