Measurement Properties of the Groningen Frailty Indicator in Home-Dwelling and Institutionalized Elderly People
Measurement Properties of the Groningen Frailty Indicator in Home-Dwelling and Institutionalized Elderly People
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.jamda.2012.04.007
复制
发表时间：
2012-07-01
影响因子：
7.6
通讯作者：
Slaets, Joris P. J.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Peters, Lilian L.;Boter, Han;Slaets, Joris P. J.
目的：为了能够预防老年人的不良结局，需要一种有效的工具来检测高危个体。虚弱的概念比年龄本身是更好的预测指标。格罗宁根脆弱性指标(GFI)是用来识别脆弱性的。我们评估了GFI自评量表的可行性、信度和结构效度。设计：横断面研究。背景：以社区为基础。参与者：353名符合以下纳入标准的居家和机构老年人(n=353)：能够填写问卷的65岁及以上的人。测量：通过确定每个项目的缺失值比例来评估GFI的可行性。通过计算KR-20建立了GFI的内部一致性信度。应用Mann-Whitney和Kruskal-Wallis检验来评估特定亚组之间的歧视(已知的组效度)。使用Spearman等级相关分析评估GFI与疾病和障碍、病例复杂性、卫生保健需求(Intermed)、生活满意度(Cantril Layer Of Life)、日常生活能力(Katz)、生活质量(EQ-5D)和心理健康(SF-36)之间的收敛和判别效度。结果：共有296人(84%)完成了GFI的所有条目，内部一致性为0.68。GFI在亚组中产生了具有统计学意义的GFI评分(已知的群体效度)。收敛(范围0.45-0.61)和判别效度(范围0.08-0.50)的相关性也是假设的。与非体弱老年人相比，体弱老年人的病例复杂性、残障程度较高，而生活质量和生活满意度较低。结论：本研究支持自评版GFI在居家和住院老年人中的可行性、信度和效度。版权所有(C)2012-美国医学主任协会，Inc.
Objectives: To enable prevention of poor outcome in elderly people, a valid instrument is required to detect individuals at high risk. The concept of frailty is a better predictor than age alone. The Groningen Frailty Indicator (GFI) has been developed to identify frailty. We assessed feasibility, reliability, and construct validity of the self-assessment version of the GFI.Design: Cross-sectional.Setting: Community-based.Participants: Home-dwelling and institutionalized elderly persons were included in the study (n = 353) who met the following inclusion criteria: persons 65 years and older who were able to fill out questionnaires.Measurements: The feasibility of the GFI was assessed by determining the proportion of missing values per item. The internal consistency reliability of the GFI was established by calculating the KR-20. Mann-Whitney and Kruskal-Wallis tests were applied to assess discrimination between specific subgroups (known group validity). Convergent and discriminant validity was assessed using Spearman Rank correlations between GFI and diseases and disorders, case complexity, and health care needs (INTERMED), life satisfaction (Cantril Ladder of Life), activities of daily living (Katz), quality of life (EQ-5D), and mental health (SF-36). Finally, we used multivariate regression analyses to evaluate the cutoff score of the GFI (= 4).Results: A total of 296 (84%) of the participants completed all items of the GFI; the internal consistency was 0.68. The GFI yielded statistically significant GFI scores for subgroups (known group validity). The correlations for the convergent (range 0.45 to 0.61) and discriminant validity (range 0.08 to 0.50) were also as hypothesized. In contrast with nonfrail participants, frail older persons had higher levels of case complexity, disability, and lower quality of life and life satisfaction.Conclusions: This study supports the feasibility, reliability, and validity of the self-assessment version of the GFI in home-dwelling and institutionalized elderly people. Copyright (C) 2012 - American Medical Directors Association, Inc.