Morse Fall Risk Assessment Tool (MFS)

BioPsychoSocial Assessment Tools for the Elderly - Assessment Summary Sheet

Test: Morse Fall Risk Assessment Tool (MFS)

 

Year: 1989


Domain: Biological


Assessment Tool Category: Mobility

 

Variations/Translations: N/A

 

Setting:  Clinical

 

Method of Delivery: In person interview/assessment

 

Description: This instrument was designed to identify individuals at risk for anticipated falls.  The MFS consists of six items: history of falling, presence of secondary diagnosis, use of an ambulation aid, i.v. therapy, type of gait, and mental status.  Presence of a risk factor is indicated by a “yes” or “no”.  “Yes” or “no” responses or descriptors for each item have been assigned a rating in five point increments ranging from 0-30 points.

 

Scoring/Interpretation: The MFS consists of 6 items with a total possible score of 125. If a patient scores <25 they are considered to be at a low risk of falling, 25-50 is medium risk and >51 is high risk of falling.

 

Time to Administer: approximately 1 minute

 

Availability: Available in Morse (1986)

 

Software: N/A

 

Website: N/A

 

Quantitative/Qualitative: Quantitative

 

Validity (Quantitative): Sensitivity (ability to detect falls when they are present) = 72%.  Specificity (ability to identify correctly the absence of falls) = 51%.  Positive Predictive Value (how well test predicted compared to actual number of falls) = 38%. Negative Predictive Value (how well negative test correctly predicts absence of falls) = 81%.  Accuracy (overall rate of agreement between the test and the actual number of falls) = 57%.  Prevalence (ratio of the number of people who have fallen divided by the total number of people at risk for falling) = 30%

 

Reliability (Quantitative): Based on a prospective cohort study in a Swiss hospital, the inter-rater reliability was found to be 84% (K = 0.68).

References:

Morse JM, Morse BM, Tylko S (1986). Development of a scale to identify the fall-prone patient. Canadian Journal on Aging, 8, 66-77.

Comments: N/A