IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0234698.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparison of alternative full and brief versions of functional status scales among older adults in China

Author

Listed:
  • Jeremy Reich
  • Mark G Thompson
  • Benjamin J Cowling
  • A Danielle Iuliano
  • Carolyn Greene
  • Yuyun Chen
  • Rachael Phadnis
  • Nancy H L Leung
  • Ying Song
  • Vicky J Fang
  • Cuiling Xu
  • Qigang Dai
  • Jun Zhang
  • Hongjun Zhang
  • Fiona Havers
  • on behalf of the CARES investigators

Abstract

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Jeremy Reich & Mark G Thompson & Benjamin J Cowling & A Danielle Iuliano & Carolyn Greene & Yuyun Chen & Rachael Phadnis & Nancy H L Leung & Ying Song & Vicky J Fang & Cuiling Xu & Qigang Dai & Jun Zh, 2020. "Comparison of alternative full and brief versions of functional status scales among older adults in China," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(8), pages 1-16, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0234698
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0234698
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0234698
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0234698&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0234698?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0234698. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.