Skip to main content
. 2023 Dec 1;8(4):240–253. doi: 10.22540/JFSF-08-240

Table 1.

Overview of question-based tools assessing fall risk included in the review.

Tool name Study Tool developer* Tool name No of questions Type of answers Participants Type of study Age Gender of participants (% females)
Scripted Fall Risk Screening Tool (FRST) Feilding et al, 2013[16] Modified Fall Risk Screening Tool (FRST) 23 4-point scale 111 Cross-sectional NA (age > 65 years) NA
Modified Suzuki’s fall assessment Questionnaire (FRAS) Hirase et al, 2014[35] Suzuki et al.[36] Modified Suzuki’s fall assessment Questionnaire (FRAS) 7 Yes/no 1871 Retrospective 76.5 ± 7 (65-95) 67.8%
292 Prospective (3-months) 81.6 ±6.2 (66-92) 82.4%
Questionnaire from NHATS study Gadkaree et al, 2015[25] Questionnaire from NHATS study 5 MCQ 7609 Prospective (12-months) 65-69 = 27.9% 70-74 = 25% 75-79 = 19.1% 80-84 = 14.7% 85-89 = 9.1% 90+ = 4.3% 56.6%
Frailty Index (FI) Kojima et al, 2015[26] Mitnitski et al.[41] Frailty Index (FI) 40 Dichotomous and 3-point scale 248 Prospective (24-weeks) 72.9 ± 6.1 63.7%
NA, Online Questionnaire Obrist et al, 2016[27] NA, Online Questionnaire 36 NA 134 Prospective (6-months) 69.3 ± 5.6 (NA) 45%
ABC Cleary et at, 2017[28] Powel and Meyers[42] ABC 16 11-point scale 45 Prospective (6-months) 83.2 ± 6.3 (67-94) 68.9%
Self-reported unsteadiness Donoghue et al, 2017[29] Self-reported unsteadiness 3 4-point scale 1621 Prospective (2-years) 71.2 ± 5.2 (65-93) 51.6%
3-STEADI (3 key questions) Eckstrom et al, 2017[24] 3-STEADI (3 key questions) 3 Yes/no 405 Retrospective 73.1 64.2%
NA Rodriguez et al, 2017[30] NA 2 Yes/no and 3-point scale 772 Prospective (12-months) 80.7 ± 0.1 (median ± SD) 62.5%
Online Assessment Instrument for Elderly Falls (IAQI) Silveira et al, 2018[17] Online Assessment Instrument for Elderly Falls (IAQI) 14 6 MCQs, 8 yes/no 24 Cross-sectional NA (age > 60 years) NA
FRRISque Chini et al, 2019[18] FRRISque 10 Yes/no 854 Cross-sectional 60-69 = 43.4% 70-79 = 39.7% 80-89 = 14.8% >90 = 2.1% 57.6%
Thai-modified STEADI Loonlawong et al, 2019[19] Rubenstein et al.[38] Thai-modified STEADI 12 (original) and 18 (Thai-modified) Yes/no 480 Cross-sectional 72.8 ± 6.64 (65–90) 52%
Chinese HomeFAST Lai et al, 2020[32] Mackenzie et al.[37] Chinese HomeFAST 20 Yes/no 210 Prospective (6-months) 71.45 ± 6.38 (66-81) 50%
Persian Fall Risk Screening Tool (FRST) Tabatabaei et al, 2020[20] Feilding et al, 2013[16] Persian Fall Risk Screening Tool (FRST) 23 4-point scale 537 Cross-sectional 67.18 ± 6.93 57.1%
MFES (modified falls efficacy scale) Yang et al, 2020[31] Hill et al.[44] MFES (modified falls efficacy scale) 14 11-point scale 47 Prospective (12-months) 78.9 ± 5.5 (70-93) 74.5%
Brazil HomeFAST Ferreira et al, 2021[21] Mackenzie et al.[37] Brazil HomeFAST 20 Yes/no 50 Cross-sectional 73.2 ± 5.8 84%
LRMS Argyrou et al, 202222 LRMS 11 4-point scale 173 Cross-sectional 72.3 ± 6.3 (60–91) 69.4%
3-STEADI (3 key questions) Burns et al, 2022[33] Eckstrom et al, 2017[24] 3-STEADI (3 key questions) 3 Yes/no 1563 Prospective (12-months) 65-74 = 68.2% 75-84 = 26.5% >85 = 5.3% 52.5%
Stay Independent Rubenstein et al.[39] Stay Independent 12 Yes/no
AGS/BGS AGS/BGS Panel[39] AGS/BGS 3 Yes/no and number of falls
Short FES-I Kempen et al.[40] Short FES-I 7 4-point scale
Fell in the past year Fell in the past year 1 Yes/no
Fallen in the past 12 months Fallen in the past 12 months 1 number of falls
Machine learning Ikeda et al, 2022[34] Machine learning 14 Yes/no and MCQs 61883 Prospective (3-years) 72.8 ± 5.5 (non-fallers) 75.4 ± 6.1 (fallers) 53.72%
FRSAS (Fall Risk Self Assessment Scale) Wang et al, 2022[23] FRSAS (Fall Risk Self Assessment Scale) 41 Dichotomous 222 Cross-sectional 73.84 ± 7.46 (65-90) 63.06%

Age presented as mean ± SD (range), unless stated otherwise. * in cases that the developer of the original tool is different from the authors of the study.