LOGIN TO YOUR ACCOUNT

Username
Password
Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Or use your Academic/Social account:

Congratulations!

You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.

Important!

Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Name:
Username:
Password:
Verify Password:
E-mail:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
van Rossum Erik; Daniëls Ramon; Metzelthin Silke F; de Witte Luc; van den Heuvel Wim JA; Kempen Gertrudis IJM (2010)
Publisher: BioMed Central
Journal: BMC Public Health
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects: Research article, RA1-1270, Public aspects of medicine

Abstract

Background

Frailty is highly prevalent in older people. Its serious adverse consequences, such as disability, are considered to be a public health problem. Therefore, disability prevention in community-dwelling frail older people is considered to be a priority for research and clinical practice in geriatric care. With regard to disability prevention, valid screening instruments are needed to identify frail older people in time. The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the psychometric properties of three screening instruments: the Groningen Frailty Indicator (GFI), the Tilburg Frailty Indicator (TFI) and the Sherbrooke Postal Questionnaire (SPQ). For validation purposes the Groningen Activity Restriction Scale (GARS) was added.

Methods

A questionnaire was sent to 687 community-dwelling older people (≥ 70 years). Agreement between instruments, internal consistency, and construct validity of instruments were evaluated and compared.

Results

The response rate was 77%. Prevalence estimates of frailty ranged from 40% to 59%. The highest agreement was found between the GFI and the TFI (Cohen's kappa = 0.74). Cronbach's alpha for the GFI, the TFI and the SPQ was 0.73, 0.79 and 0.26, respectively. Scores on the three instruments correlated significantly with each other (GFI - TFI, r = 0.87; GFI - SPQ, r = 0.47; TFI - SPQ, r = 0.42) and with the GARS (GFI - GARS, r = 0.57; TFI - GARS, r = 0.61; SPQ - GARS, r = 0.46). The GFI and the TFI scores were, as expected, significantly related to age, sex, education and income.

Conclusions

The GFI and the TFI showed high internal consistency and construct validity in contrast to the SPQ. Based on these findings it is not yet possible to conclude whether the GFI or the TFI should be preferred; data on the predictive values of both instruments are needed. The SPQ seems less appropriate for postal screening of frailty among community-dwelling older people.

  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • 1. Slaets JP: Vulnerability in the elderly: frailty. Med Clin North Am 2006, 90(4):593-601.
    • 2. Levers MJ, Estabrooks CA, Ross Kerr JC: Factors contributing to frailty: literature review. J Adv Nurs 2006, 56(3):282-291.
    • 3. Markle-Reid M, Browne G: Conceptualizations of frailty in relation to older adults. J Adv Nurs 2003, 44(1):58-68.
    • 4. Pel Littel RE, Schuurmans MJ, Emmelot Vonk MH, Verhaar HJ: Frailty: defining and measuring of a concept. J Nutr Health Aging 2009, 13(4):390-394.
    • 5. Fried LP, Ferrucci L, Darer J, Williamson JD, Anderson G: Untangling the concepts of disability, frailty, and comorbidity: implications for improved targeting and care. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 2004, 59(3):255-263.
    • 6. Daniels R, Metzelthin S, Van Rossum E, De Witte L, Heuvel W Van den: Interventions to prevent disability in frail community-dwelling older persons: an overview. European Journal of Ageing 2010, 7(1):137-155.
    • 7. De Lepeleire J, Degryse J, Illiffe S, Mann E, Buntinx F: Family physicians need easy instruments for frailty. Age Ageing 2008, 37(4):484. author reply 484-485
    • 8. Hebert R, Bravo G, Korner-Bitensky N, Voyer L: Predictive validity of a postal questionnaire for screening community-dwelling elderly individuals at risk of functional decline. Age Ageing 1996, 25(2):159-167.
    • 9. Daniels R, Van Rossum HIJ, De Witte LP, Heuvel WJA Van den: Frailty in Older Age: Concepts and Relevance for Occupational and Physical Therapy. Physical & Occupational Therapy In Geriatrics 2008, 27(2):81-95.
    • 10. Bergman H, Beland F, Karunanthan S, Hummel S, Hogan D, Wolfson C: Developing a working framework for understanding frailty. (English translation of article published in). Gerontologie et Societe 2004, 109:15-29.
    • 11. Rockwood K, Mitnitski A: Frailty in relation to the accumulation of deficits. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 2007, 62(7):722-727.
    • 12. Searle SD, Mitnitski A, Gahbauer EA, Gill TM, Rockwood K: A standard procedure for creating a frailty index. BMC Geriatr 2008, 8:24.
    • 13. Guralnik JM, Branch LG, Cummings SR, Curb JD: Physical performance measures in aging research. J Gerontol 1989, 44(5):M141-146.
    • 14. Kempen GI, van Heuvelen MJ, Brink RH van den, Kooijman AC, Klein M, Houx PJ, Ormel J: Factors affecting contrasting results between selfreported and performance-based levels of physical limitation. Age Ageing 1996, 25(6):458-464.
    • 15. Martin FC, Brighton P: Frailty: different tools for different purposes? Age Ageing 2008, 37(2):129-131.
    • 16. Steverink N, Slaets JPJ, Schuurmans H, Lis van M: Measuring Frailty. Development and testing of the Groningen Frailty Indicator (GFI). Gerontologist 2001, 41:236-237.
    • 17. Gobbens RJJ, van Assen MALM, Luijkx KG, Wijnen-Sponselee MT, Schols JMGA: The Tilburg Frailty Indicator: Psychometric Properties. Journal of the American Medical Director Association in press.
    • 18. Frieswijk N, Steverink N, Buunk BP, Slaets JP: The effectiveness of a bibliotherapy in increasing the self-management ability of slightly to moderately frail older people. Patient Educ Couns 2006, 61(2):219-227.
    • 19. Roberts H, Hemsley Z, Thomas G, Aihie Sayer A, Gove I, Turner G, Meakins P, Morran-Ryan M, Purcell A, Powell J: Can the Sherbrooke postal questionnaire predict who will require comprehensive assessment in the single assessment process? Volume Spring Meeting 2005, 13-15 Apr 2005 Birmingham, UK: British Geriatrics Society; 2005.
    • 20. Roberts HC, Hemsley ZM, Thomas G, Meakins P, Powell J, Robison J, Gove I, Turner G, Sayer AA: Nurse-led implementation of the single assessment process in primary care: a descriptive feasibility study. Age Ageing 2006, 35(4):394-398.
    • 21. Schuurmans H, Steverink N, Lindenberg S, Frieswijk N, Slaets JP: Old or frail: what tells us more? J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 2004, 59(9):M962-965.
    • 22. Walker L, Jamrozik K, Wingfield D: The Sherbrooke Questionnaire predicts use of emergency services. Age Ageing 2005, 34(3):233-237.
    • 23. Kempen GI, Miedema I, Ormel J, Molenaar W: The assessment of disability with the Groningen Activity Restriction Scale. Conceptual framework and psychometric properties. Soc Sci Med 1996, 43(11):1601-1610.
    • 24. Steinbusch C: Screening of frail elderly in the community. The feasibility and psychometric properties of three instruments. Maastricht, School for Public Health and Primary Care; 2008.
    • 25. Kuder GF, Richardson MW: The theory of the estimation of test reliability. Psychometrika 1937, 2:151-160.
    • 26. Fox-Wasylyshyn SM, El-Masri MM: Focus on Research Methods Handling Missing Data in Self-Report Measures. Research in Nursing & Health 2005, 28:488-495.
    • 27. Avila-Funes JA, Helmer C, Amieva H, Barberger-Gateau P, Le Goff M, Ritchie K, Portet F, Carriere I, Tavernier B, Gutierrez-Robledo LM, Dartigues JF: Frailty among community-dwelling elderly people in France: the three-city study. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 2008, 63(10):1089-1096.
    • 28. Rosner B: Fundamentals of Biostatistics 6th edition. Duxbury: Thomson Brooks/Cole; 2006.
    • 29. Lokale en nationale monitor gezondheid [http:// www.monitorgezondheid.nl/home.xml]
    • 30. Landis JR, Koch GG: The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977, 33(1):159-174.
    • 31. Nunnally JC: Psychometric theory 2nd edition. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1978.
    • 32. Bergman H, Ferrucci L, Guralnik J, Hogan DB, Hummel S, Karunananthan S, Wolfson C: Frailty: an emerging research and clinical paradigm--issues and controversies. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 2007, 62(7):731-737.
    • 33. Santos-Eggimann B, Cuenoud P, Spagnoli J, Junod J: Prevalence of frailty in middle-aged and older community-dwelling Europeans living in 10 countries. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 2009, 64(6):675-681.
    • 34. Fried LP, Tangen CM, Walston J, Newman AB, Hirsch C, Gottdiener J, Seeman T, Tracy R, Kop WJ, Burke G, McBurnie MA: Frailty in older adults: evidence for a phenotype. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 2001, 56(3):M146-156.
    • 35. Bouman A: Home visiting program for older persons with poor health status. In PhD thesis Maastricht University, School for Public Health and Primary Care; 2008.
    • 36. Zijlstra GAR: Managing concerns about falls. Fear of falling and avoidance of activity in older people. In PhD thesis Maastricht University, School for Public Health and Primary Care; 2008.
    • 37. Bowns I, Challis D, Tong MS: Case finding in elderly people: validation of a postal questionnaire. Br J Gen Pract 1991, 41(344):100-104.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article