Comparison of alternative full and brief versions of functional status scales among older adults in China.
Journal
PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
Titre abrégé: PLoS One
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101285081
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2020
2020
Historique:
received:
17
05
2019
accepted:
01
06
2020
entrez:
12
8
2020
pubmed:
12
8
2020
medline:
2
10
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Brief assessments of functional status for community-dwelling older adults are needed given expanded interest in the measurement of functional decline. As part of a 2015 prospective cohort study of older adults aged 60-89 years in Jiangsu Province, China, 1506 participants were randomly assigned to two groups; each group was administered one of two alternative 20-item versions of a scale to assess activities of daily living (ADL) and instrumental activities of daily living (IADL) drawn from multiple commonly-used scales. One version asked if they required help to perform activities (ADL-IADL-HELP-20), while the other version provided additional response options if activities could be done alone but with difficulty (ADL-IADL-DIFFICULTY-20). Item responses to both versions were compared using the binomial test for differences in proportion (with Wald 95% confidence interval [CI]). A brief 9-item scale (ADL-IADL-DIFFICULTY-9) was developed favoring items identified as difficult or requiring help by ≥4%, with low redundancy and/or residual correlations, and with significant correlations with age and other health indicators. We repeated assessment of the measurement properties of the brief scale in two subsequent samples of older adults in Hong Kong in 2016 (aged 70-79 years; n = 404) and 2017 (aged 65-82 years; n = 1854). Asking if an activity can be done alone but with difficulty increased the proportion of participants reporting restriction on 9 of 20 items, for which 95% CI for difference scores did not overlap with zero; the proportion with at least one limitation increased from 28.6% to 34.2% or an absolute increase of 5.6% (95% CI = 0.9-10.3%), which was a relative increase of 19.6%. The brief ADL-IADL-DIFFICULTY-9 maintained excellent internal consistency (α = 0.93) and had similar ceiling effect (68.1%), invariant item ordering (H trans = .41; medium), and correlations with age and other health measures compared with the 20-item version. The brief scale performed similarly when subsequently administered to older adults in Hong Kong. Asking if tasks can be done alone but with difficulty can modestly reduce ceiling effects. It's possible that the length of commonly-used scales can be reduced by over half if researchers are primarily interested in a summed indicator rather than an inventory of specific types of deficits.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Brief assessments of functional status for community-dwelling older adults are needed given expanded interest in the measurement of functional decline.
METHODS
As part of a 2015 prospective cohort study of older adults aged 60-89 years in Jiangsu Province, China, 1506 participants were randomly assigned to two groups; each group was administered one of two alternative 20-item versions of a scale to assess activities of daily living (ADL) and instrumental activities of daily living (IADL) drawn from multiple commonly-used scales. One version asked if they required help to perform activities (ADL-IADL-HELP-20), while the other version provided additional response options if activities could be done alone but with difficulty (ADL-IADL-DIFFICULTY-20). Item responses to both versions were compared using the binomial test for differences in proportion (with Wald 95% confidence interval [CI]). A brief 9-item scale (ADL-IADL-DIFFICULTY-9) was developed favoring items identified as difficult or requiring help by ≥4%, with low redundancy and/or residual correlations, and with significant correlations with age and other health indicators. We repeated assessment of the measurement properties of the brief scale in two subsequent samples of older adults in Hong Kong in 2016 (aged 70-79 years; n = 404) and 2017 (aged 65-82 years; n = 1854).
RESULTS
Asking if an activity can be done alone but with difficulty increased the proportion of participants reporting restriction on 9 of 20 items, for which 95% CI for difference scores did not overlap with zero; the proportion with at least one limitation increased from 28.6% to 34.2% or an absolute increase of 5.6% (95% CI = 0.9-10.3%), which was a relative increase of 19.6%. The brief ADL-IADL-DIFFICULTY-9 maintained excellent internal consistency (α = 0.93) and had similar ceiling effect (68.1%), invariant item ordering (H trans = .41; medium), and correlations with age and other health measures compared with the 20-item version. The brief scale performed similarly when subsequently administered to older adults in Hong Kong.
CONCLUSIONS
Asking if tasks can be done alone but with difficulty can modestly reduce ceiling effects. It's possible that the length of commonly-used scales can be reduced by over half if researchers are primarily interested in a summed indicator rather than an inventory of specific types of deficits.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32780744
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0234698
pii: PONE-D-19-14004
pmc: PMC7418957
doi:
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Research Support, U.S. Gov't, P.H.S.
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e0234698Subventions
Organisme : NCIRD CDC HHS
ID : U01 IP001064
Pays : United States
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have read the journal’s policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: BJC has received research funding unrelated to this study from Sanofi Pasteur (https://www.sanofi.com/en/your-health/vaccines). RP is a paid employee of Abt Associates (https://www.abtassociates.com/). There are no patents, products in development or marketed products associated with this research to declare. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.
Références
Clin Infect Dis. 2019 Dec 12;:
pubmed: 31828291
PLoS One. 2015 Dec 30;10(12):e0146247
pubmed: 26716861
Soc Sci Med. 1996 Dec;43(11):1601-10
pubmed: 8961404
Aging (Milano). 1993 Oct;5(5):371-83
pubmed: 8123698
Vaccine. 2009 Mar 4;27(10):1628-36
pubmed: 19100304
Gerontologist. 1996 Oct;36(5):571-83
pubmed: 8942101
J Appl Meas. 2002;3(2):205-31
pubmed: 12011501
Vaccine. 2011 Jul 12;29(31):5015-21
pubmed: 21565245
Psychol Bull. 1955 Jul;52(4):281-302
pubmed: 13245896
Int Disabil Stud. 1988;10(2):64-7
pubmed: 3042746
BMC Geriatr. 2008 Sep 30;8:24
pubmed: 18826625
Md State Med J. 1965 Feb;14:61-5
pubmed: 14258950
J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2015 May 1;16(5):412-9
pubmed: 25732832
J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2014 Jun;69(6):766-72
pubmed: 24149431
J Am Geriatr Soc. 2016 Jun;64(6):1281-6
pubmed: 27321607
BMC Geriatr. 2018 Dec 14;18(1):314
pubmed: 30547760
Am J Occup Ther. 1993 Apr;47(4):319-29
pubmed: 8322873
J Health Psychol. 2014 Sep;19(9):1185-96
pubmed: 23682064
Gerontologist. 1969 Autumn;9(3):179-86
pubmed: 5349366
BMC Med. 2015 Jul 13;13:161
pubmed: 26166298
BMC Geriatr. 2013 Aug 22;13:86
pubmed: 23968433
J Rheumatol. 1995 Oct;22(10):1834-43
pubmed: 8991979
Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2000 Nov;15(11):1021-7
pubmed: 11113982
J Am Geriatr Soc. 2001 Dec;49(12):1691-9
pubmed: 11844005
J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2004 Oct;59(10):1056-61
pubmed: 15528778
Gerontologist. 1970 Spring;10(1):20-30
pubmed: 5420677
Gerontologist. 1990 Aug;30(4):497-502
pubmed: 2394384
BMJ Open. 2017 Nov 1;7(10):e017503
pubmed: 29092901
Scand J Soc Med. 1993 Dec;21(4):233-46
pubmed: 8310276
Int Psychogeriatr. 1997;9 Suppl 1:87-94; discussion 143-50
pubmed: 9447431
BMC Geriatr. 2011 Apr 20;11:17
pubmed: 21507234
Hum Vaccin Immunother. 2018 Feb 1;14(2):361-367
pubmed: 29172948
Alzheimers Res Ther. 2014 Sep 18;6(5-8):54
pubmed: 25356088
Sci Rep. 2019 Feb 4;9(1):1207
pubmed: 30718784
J Clin Nurs. 2012 Oct;21(19-20):2736-46
pubmed: 21883577
J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2018 Nov 10;73(12):1695-1700
pubmed: 29244089
J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2015 Aug 1;16(8):711-2
pubmed: 26123255
BMC Geriatr. 2011 Aug 16;11:42
pubmed: 21846335
Exp Gerontol. 2018 May;105:4-9
pubmed: 29111233
PLoS One. 2014 Nov 13;9(11):e112294
pubmed: 25392931
J Am Geriatr Soc. 2013 Sep;61(9):1537-51
pubmed: 24028357
J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1987 Feb;50(2):177-82
pubmed: 3572432
J Am Assoc Nurse Pract. 2016 Mar;28(3):160-9
pubmed: 25964008
Br J Math Stat Psychol. 2012 May;65(2):237-50
pubmed: 21651508
Am J Public Health. 1994 Aug;84(8):1270-3
pubmed: 8059884