Function and disability in late life: comparison of the Late-Life Function and Disability Instrument to the Short-Form-36 and the London Handicap Scale

被引:44
作者
Dubuc, N
Haley, SM
Ni, PS
Kooyoomjian, JT
Jette, AM
机构
[1] Boston Univ, Sargent Coll Hlth & Rehabil Sci, Ctr Rehabil Effectiveness, Boston, MA 02215 USA
[2] Boston Univ, Sargent Coll Hlth & Rehabil Sci, Roybal Ctr Enhancement Late Life Funct, Boston, MA 02215 USA
基金
美国国家卫生研究院; 加拿大健康研究院;
关键词
D O I
10.1080/09638280410001658667
中图分类号
R49 [康复医学];
学科分类号
100215 ;
摘要
Purpose: We evaluated the Late-Life Function and Disability Instrument's (LLFDI) concurrent validity, comprehensiveness and precision by comparing it with the Short-Form-36 physical functioning (PF-10) and the London Handicap Scale (LHS). Methods: We administered the LLFDI, PF-10 and LHS to 75 community-dwelling adults ( 460 years of age). We used Pearson correlation coefficients to examine concurrent validity and Rasch analysis to compare the item hierarchies, content ranges and precision of the PF-10 and LLFDI function domains, and the LHS and the LLFDI disability domains. Results: LLFDI Function ( lower extremity scales) and PF-10 scores were highly correlated (r= 0.74-0.86, p>0.001); moderate correlations were found between the LHS and the LLFDI Disability limitation ( r= 0.66, p<0.0001) and Disability frequency ( r= 0.47, p<0.001) scores. The LLFDI had a wider range of content coverage, less ceiling effects and better relative precision across the spectrum of function and disability than the PF-10 and the LHS. The LHS had slightly more content range and precision in the lower end of the disability scale than the LLFDI. Conclusions: The LLFDI is a more comprehensive and precise instrument compared to the PF-10 and LHS for assessing function and disability in community-dwelling older adults.
引用
收藏
页码:362 / 370
页数:9
相关论文
共 50 条
[1]   Criteria for assessing the tools of disability outcomes research [J].
Andresen, EM .
ARCHIVES OF PHYSICAL MEDICINE AND REHABILITATION, 2000, 81 (12) :S15-S20
[2]   CONSTRUCT-VALIDATION AND THE RASCH MODEL - FUNCTIONAL ABILITY OF HEALTHY ELDERLY PEOPLE [J].
AVLUND, K ;
KREINER, S ;
SCHULTZLARSEN, K .
SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF SOCIAL MEDICINE, 1993, 21 (04) :233-245
[3]  
AVLUND K, 1995, SCANDINAVIAN J OCCUP, V2, P10, DOI DOI 10.3109/11038129509106793
[4]   VALIDATING THE SF-36 HEALTH SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE - NEW OUTCOME MEASURE FOR PRIMARY CARE [J].
BRAZIER, JE ;
HARPER, R ;
JONES, NMB ;
OCATHAIN, A ;
THOMAS, KJ ;
USHERWOOD, T ;
WESTLAKE, L .
BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 1992, 305 (6846) :160-164
[5]  
Cella D, 2000, MED CARE, V38, P66
[6]   Test-retest reliability of self-reported disability measures in older adults [J].
Crawford, SL ;
Jette, AM ;
Tennstedt, SL .
JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN GERIATRICS SOCIETY, 1997, 45 (03) :338-341
[7]   EFFECTS OF VARIATIONS IN ITEM STEP VALUES ON ITEM AND TEST INFORMATION IN THE PARTIAL CREDIT MODEL [J].
DODD, BG ;
KOCH, WR .
APPLIED PSYCHOLOGICAL MEASUREMENT, 1987, 11 (04) :371-384
[8]  
DUBUC N, IN PRESS J REHABILIT
[9]   An item response theory analysis of self-report measures of adult attachment [J].
Fraley, RC ;
Waller, NG ;
Brennan, KA .
JOURNAL OF PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY, 2000, 78 (02) :350-365
[10]   Rasch analysis of the Roland Disability Questionnaire [J].
Garratt, AM .
SPINE, 2003, 28 (01) :79-84