Proxy reporting in five areas of functional status - Comparison with self-reports and observations of performance
Proxy reporting in five areas of functional status - Comparison with self-reports and observations of performance
复制标题
DOI：
10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a009295
复制
发表时间：
1997-09-01
影响因子：
5
通讯作者：
Fox, KM
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Magaziner, J;Zimmerman, SI;Fox, KM
代理评级的功能状态进行了比较，在五个领域的研究有关的老年人和受试者的表现在两个领域（身体和工具功能）的意见与主题的自我报告。数据来源于马里兰州巴尔的摩65岁或以上髋部骨折患者的前瞻性研究（1990-1991）中评价的233对代理人-受试者对。代理人和主题报告之间的协议是最高的工具功能和抑郁症的措施最低的一个总结措施。代理人倾向于报告更多的残疾比科目，虽然偏见不同的功能。代理报告的协议模式与观察的性能相比，代理报告与主题报告的模式较低的工具功能的措施，和偏见一般是更极端的工具和身体功能的措施。作者的结论是，同意和偏见不同的功能领域，通过总结措施的方式创建和评分，并根据代理报告进行比较的标准。
Proxy ratings of functional status were compared with subject self-reports in five domains relevant to the study of older persons and with observations of subject performance in two areas (physical and instrumental functioning). Data were derived from 233 proxy-subject pairs evaluated in a prospective study of hip fracture patients aged 65 years or more in Baltimore, Maryland (1990-1991). Agreement between proxy and subject reports was highest for a summary measure of instrumental functioning and lowest for a measure of depression. Proxies tended to report more disability than did subjects, although bias varied by function. Patterns of agreement for proxy reports versus observations of performance compared with patterns for proxy reports versus subject reports were lower for measures of instrumental functioning, and bias was generally more extreme for instrumental and physical functioning measures. The authors conclude that agreement and bias differ by functional domain, by the way summary measures are created and scored, and by the criterion against which proxy reports are compared.