. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2016 Aug 1.

Published in final edited form as: Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2015 Apr 8;96(8):1458–1466. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2015.03.019

Table 3.

Poisson models predicting the number of falls.

	Model 1			Model 2			Model 3
	pseudo R² = .07 p = .006			pseudo R² = .13 p = .032			pseudo R² = .12 p = .002
	IRR	95% CI	p	IRR	95% CI	p	IRR	95% CI	p
Presence of spatial neglect at admission (KF-NAP > 0)	7.92	[1.05, 59.50]	.044	7.38	[.82, 66.12]	.074	7.37	[.98, 55.49]	.052
Right-brain stroke				.59	[.19, 1.82]	.360
Age				.96	[.92, .99]	.022	.96	[.93, 1.00]	.034
Days post stroke at admission				.97	[.89, 1.07]	.573
FIM Motor at admission				.98	[.94, 1.02]	.423
FIM Cognitive at admission				1.03	[.92, 1.15]	.603
Residual	.03	[.004, .21]	< .001	1.69	[.01, 303.15]	.842	.41	[.02, 8.61]	.564
Model comparison (Likelihood-ratio test)				Model 2 vs. 1: χ²(5) = 6.26, p = .282			Model 3 vs. 1: χ²(1) = 4.56, p = .033
Model comparison (Likelihood-ratio test)							Model 3 vs. 2: χ²(4) = 1.70, p = .791

Abbreviations: KF-NAP, Kessler Foundation Neglect Assessment Process; FIM, Functional Independence Measure; IRR, incidence rate ratio