The psychometric properties of three self-report screening instruments for identifying frail older people in the community.
The psychometric properties of three self-report screening instruments for identifying frail older people in the community.
复制标题
三种自我报告筛查工具的心理计量学特性，用于识别社区中脆弱的老年人。
DOI：
10.1186/1471-2458-10-176
复制
发表时间：
2010-03-31
影响因子：
4.5
通讯作者：
Kempen, Gertrudis I. J. M.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Metzelthin, Silke F.;Daniels, Ramon;van Rossum, Erik;de Witte, Luc;van den Heuvel, Wim J. A.;Kempen, Gertrudis I. J. M.
老年人身体虚弱的现象非常普遍。其严重的不良后果，如残疾，被认为是一个公共卫生问题。因此，社区居住的体弱老年人的残疾预防被认为是老年护理研究和临床实践的优先事项。在预防残疾方面，需要有效的筛查工具，以及时发现年老体弱者。本研究的目的是评估和比较三种筛选工具的心理测量学特性：格罗宁根脆弱指标（GFI），蒂尔堡脆弱指标（TFI）和舍布鲁克邮政问卷（SPQ）。出于验证目的，增加了格罗宁根活动限制量表（加尔斯）。对687名社区老年人（≥ 70岁）进行了问卷调查。对工具间的一致性、内部一致性和工具的结构效度进行了评价和比较。应答率为77%。虚弱的患病率估计范围为40%至59%。GFI和TFI之间的一致性最高（Cohen's kappa = 0.74）。GFI、TFI和SPQ的Cronbach α分别为0.73、0.79和0.26。三种仪器的评分彼此显著相关（GFI - TFI，r = 0.87; GFI - SPQ，r = 0.47; TFI - SPQ，r = 0.42），并与加尔斯显著相关（GFI -加尔斯，r = 0.57; TFI -加尔斯，r = 0.61; SPQ -加尔斯，r = 0.46）。正如预期的那样，GFI和TFI评分与年龄、性别、教育和收入显着相关。与SPQ相比，GFI和TFI具有较高的内部一致性和结构效度。基于这些发现，尚不可能得出结论，是否GFI或TFI应首选;两种工具的预测值的数据是必要的。SPQ似乎不太适合在社区居住的老年人中进行邮政筛查。
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. 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. 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. 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.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
3
作者：
Kuder, G. F.;Richardson, M. W.
通讯作者：
Richardson, M. W.
影响因子：
2
作者：
Fox-Wasylyshyn, SM;El-Masri, MM
通讯作者：
El-Masri, MM
影响因子：
3.5
作者：
Frieswijk, N;Steverink, N;Slaets, JPJ
通讯作者：
Slaets, JPJ
影响因子：
1.9
作者：
LANDIS, JR;KOCH, GG
通讯作者：
KOCH, GG
DOI：
10.1093/gerona/glp012
发表时间：
2009-06-01
影响因子：
5.1
作者：
Santos-Eggimann, Brigitte;Cuenoud, Patrick;Junod, Julien
通讯作者：
Junod, Julien