IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/eujoag/v15y2018i1d10.1007_s10433-017-0422-7.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Validity of the EASYCare Standard 2010 assessment instrument for self-assessment of health, independence, and well-being of older people living at home in Poland

Author

Listed:
  • Sławomir Tobis

    (University of Medical Sciences)

  • Krystyna Jaracz

    (University of Medical Sciences)

  • Dorota Talarska

    (University of Medical Sciences)

  • Sylwia Kropińska

    (University of Medical Sciences)

  • Ewa Zasadzka

    (University of Medical Sciences)

  • Mariola Pawlaczyk

    (University of Medical Sciences)

  • Katarzyna Wieczorowska-Tobis

    (University of Medical Sciences)

  • Ian Philp

    (University of Warwick)

  • Aleksandra Suwalska

    (University of Medical Sciences)

Abstract

EASYCare Standard 2010 is a brief instrument identifying concerns in health, functional independence, and well-being, from older persons’ perspective. It has not previously been validated for self-assessment. Our aim was to determine whether self-assessment (EC1) can give comparable results to an evaluation performed by professionals (EC2), for older people living at home. The study included community-dwelling individuals (aged at least 60 years, n = 100; 67 females) without dementia (abbreviated mental test score [AMTS] above 6). It comprised two assessments (self and professional), including summarising indexes: Independence score [IS], Risk of breakdown in care [RBC], Risk of falls [RF], performed within a period between 1 and 2 weeks. Additionally, during EC1, reference tests of physical and mental function (Barthel Index: 96.3 ± 6.5, Lawton scale: 6.7 ± 2.0, geriatric depression scale: 3.0 ± 2.7, AMTS: 10.2 ± 1.0) were applied to test for concurrent validity. Cohen’s kappa values (self-assessment vs. professional assessment) across all EASYCare domains were high (0.89–0.95). Results of all summarising indexes derived from self-assessment correlated strongly with reference tests. No differences were found in IS and RBC between EC1 and EC2 (8.6 ± 12.0 vs. 9.0 ± 12.7 and 1.0 ± 1.1 vs. 1.2 ± 1.4). Results of RF were higher in EC2 (1.0 ± 1.1 vs. 1.1 ± 1.4; p = 0.005), due to a different response to the item “Do you feel safe outside your home?” We conclude that self-assessment with EASYCare Standard in older people without severe functional impairment living at home can deliver valid results, similar to those obtained through professional assessment, thus providing an efficient system for assessment of relatively independent individuals.

Suggested Citation

  • Sławomir Tobis & Krystyna Jaracz & Dorota Talarska & Sylwia Kropińska & Ewa Zasadzka & Mariola Pawlaczyk & Katarzyna Wieczorowska-Tobis & Ian Philp & Aleksandra Suwalska, 2018. "Validity of the EASYCare Standard 2010 assessment instrument for self-assessment of health, independence, and well-being of older people living at home in Poland," European Journal of Ageing, Springer, vol. 15(1), pages 101-108, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:eujoag:v:15:y:2018:i:1:d:10.1007_s10433-017-0422-7
    DOI: 10.1007/s10433-017-0422-7
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10433-017-0422-7
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10433-017-0422-7?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    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:spr:eujoag:v:15:y:2018:i:1:d:10.1007_s10433-017-0422-7. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.