Andrea Guimarães ^1* Brisa D'louar Costa Maia ² Karolline Bastos Dantas ³ Gustavo Costa Santos ⁴ Letícia Moreira Américo ⁴ Nelzy Aparecida Silva Werner ⁴ Lúcio Flávio Gomes Ribeiro da Costa ³ César Augusto da Silva Santos ⁵ Estélio Henrique Martin Dantas ⁶

• ¹ Andrea Carmen Guimarães, São João del Rei, Brazil
• ² Universidade Federal de São João del-Rei, São João del Rei, Minas Gerais, Brazil
• ³ Tiradentes University, Aracaju, Sergipe, Brazil
• ⁴ Universidade Federal de Lavras, Lavras, Minas Gerais, Brazil
• ⁵ Universidade do Estado do Pará, Belem, Para, Brazil
• ⁶ Rio de Janeiro State Federal University, Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

Introduction: This study aims to address significant gaps in fall risk assessment among elderly individuals, using a methodological approach to develop and validate effective instruments. Objective: To establish the objectivity and reliability of the Battery for Fall Risk Assessment in Elderly People -BARQ. Methodology: 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 elderly participants (X ̅ = 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. Results: 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.