The Balance Recovery Confidence (BRC) Scale

ABSTRACT

Background

Falls efficacy posits an understanding of the perceived ability to prevent and manage falls. There have been no validated self-reported instruments to measure the perceived ability to recover balance in response to destabilizing perturbations.

Purpose

To develop a scale of balance recovery confidence.

Methods

Stage one had candidate items generated by 12 community-dwelling adults aged 65 and older using the nominal group technique. Stage two had the scale’s name, instructions, response options, recall period and the items validated for appropriateness with 28 healthcare professionals and 10 older adults using an e-Delphi technique. Stage three had the scale’s psychometric properties evaluated with 84 older adults who had completed self-reported and performance measures. Factor analysis was applied to confirm unidimensionality. The internal structure, reliability and validity of the scale were evaluated using the classical test theory and Rasch measurement theory.

Results

The 19-item scale was developed and validated with experts’ consensus. The scale is unidimensional with excellent internal structure (Cronbach’s α = 0.975) and test-retest reliability with Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC_3,1) = 0.944. Construct validity of the scale was supported by its relationships with the other measures (Activities-specific Balance Confidence scale, Falls Efficacy Scale-International, Late-Life Function and Disability International-Function, handgrip strength dynamometry, 30-second chair stand test, and mini-BESTest).

Conclusion

The balance recovery confidence scale is a distinct instrument that measures perceived reactive balance recovery. The scale has good psychometric properties and can be used to complement other measurement instruments to help older adults cope with challenges to balance.

KEYWORDS:

• Falls efficacy
• balance recovery confidence
• older adults
• falls prevention
• psycho-metric assessment

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to all older adults and healthcare professionals who have supported our study.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Supplementary material

Supplemental data for this article can be accessed online at https://doi.org/10.1080/09593985.2022.2135420

Additional information

Funding

SLHS was awarded a PhD scholarship by the Singapore Institute of Technology (SIT). A seed grant (WBS R-MOE-E103-D018) was received from SIT to support the Stage 1 and Stage 2 studies.