# Battery for fall risk assessment in older adult people—BARQ: analysis of reliability and objectivity

## TL;DR

This study develops and validates a reliable and objective tool for assessing fall risk in older adults.

## Contribution

The BARQ battery is introduced as a new instrument with high reliability and objectivity for fall risk assessment.

## Key findings

- Mobility and visual acuity showed high intra-rater and inter-rater correlations (r ≥ 0.86, p < 0.01).
- Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for mobility and visual acuity were nearly perfect (0.97 and 0.96).
- No significant differences were found in intra-rater and inter-rater assessments (p ≥ 0.37).

## Abstract

This study aims to address significant gaps in fall risk assessment among older adult individuals, using a methodological approach to develop and validate effective instruments.

To establish the objectivity and reliability of the Battery for Fall Risk Assessment in older adult people - BARQ.

This descriptive, cross-sectional, exploratory study started with a preliminary version of BARQ, based on the Comprehensive Falls Risk Screening Instrument—CFRSI. The following variables were included: Fall History and Adverse Events (FH), Medication Use (MU), Home Safety (HS), Balance (Ba), Mobility (Mo), and Visual Acuity (VA). BARQ was administered to 136 older adult participants (X̅ = 70.3 ± 7.20 years) by two assessment teams (∝ and β), at three different times, to examine instrument reliability and objectivity. Statistical analyses included Pearson’s correlation, Cronbach’s alpha coefficient, Student’s t-test, and Hedges’ g.

Intra-rater and inter-rater correlations were significant for mobility (r = 0.90 and r = 0.88, respectively; p < 0.01) and visual acuity (r = 0.86 and r = 0.87, respectively; p < 0.01). Cronbach’s alpha coefficients indicated nearly perfect reliability for mobility (0.97) and visual acuity (0.96). No statistically significant differences were found in intra-rater assessments (p ranging from 0.11 to 0.55) and inter-rater assessments (p ranging from 0.37 to 0.55). Hedges’ g test showed medium effect sizes for the overall fall risk index between S1 and S2 (g = 0.39) and small to medium for other variables.