CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 30Frailty in Older AdultsMedical Practices and RehabilitationAging, Health, and Disability

The Frail Elderly Functional Assessment questionnaire: its responsiveness and validity in alternative settings

Open access
Gloth, F.Michael, Scheve, Ann A., Shah, Sanjay, Ashton, Rendell, McKinney, Robert·1999·Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
DOI 10.1016/s0003-9993(99)90332-5
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To test the Frail Elderly Functional Assessment (FEFA) questionnaire for responsiveness (sensitivity to change) to low-level functional tasks in a frail elderly cohort and to evaluate its validity over the telephone or when administered to a caregiver proxy. SUBJECTS: Fifty-eight elderly patients from three urban inpatient rehabilitation settings and an outpatient geriatrics center. METHODS: A prospective, clinical, comparative trial. The FEFA questionnaire was administered serially. For validity, subjects were observed performing the tasks on the questionnaire within 24 hours of each interview. For responsiveness, repeat measures were performed within a 1- to 2-week period. Validity and sensitivity to change (responsiveness) of the questionnaire were determined by correlating patient responses to direct observations by rehabilitation staff. Responsiveness was also determined based on the Guyatt technique that divides clinically significant change by the normal variance, sigma/(2x [mean squared error])1/2, as well as by measures of effect size, standardized response means, and relative efficiency tests for responsiveness. To evaluate FEFA validity in alternative settings, kappa statistic and regression analyses were used based on the previously validated interviewer-administered format. RESULTS: Responsiveness was excellent with effect size (.35), standardized response means (.48), and relative efficiency (2.67) tests as well as Guyatt (1.26). There was 83% agreement when compared with FEFA task performance. Regression between change in FEFA score versus performance testing was significant (r2 = .33; p = .01). ANOVA was significant at a p = .03 for FEFA scores at first measure in rehabilitation compared to second. Correlation for caregiver proxy administration was .92 (p< or =.0001) and for telephone administration was .99 (p<.0001). CONCLUSIONS: The FEFA questionnaire, previously demonstrated to be reliable and valid, is sensitive to functional change (responsive) in frail elderly people. It is also valid when administered by phone or to a caregiver proxy.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0003-9993(99)90332-5

Cites

10 of 10 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The Groningen Frailty Indicator and Tilburg Frailty Indicator are simple and similar questionnaire-based approaches to detecting frailty.

    “The Groningen Frailty Indicator (102) and the Tilburg Frailty Indicator (103) are simple and similar (104) questionnaire based approaches to detecting people with frailty.”

    From Frailty in elderly people (2013) · cites this paper as [102]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 11 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Gloth, F. M., Scheve, A. A., Shah, S., Ashton, R., & McKinney, R.
Affiliations
  • Johns Hopkins University (US)
  • MedStar Union Memorial Hospital (US)
Corresponding author
Gloth, F.Michael
ORCID
Venue
Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
1999-12
Volume
80
Issue
12
Pages
1572-1576
ISSN
0003-9993 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/s0003-9993(99)90332-5
OpenAlex
W1969639339
Cited by
30
References
11
Citations by year
2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 3 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 3
FWCI
0.54
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Geriatrics and Gerontology › Frailty in Older Adults
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation › Medical Practices and Rehabilitation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Aging, Health, and Disability
Keywords
frail elderly, functional assessment, questionnaire responsiveness, sensitivity to change, validity, telephone administration, inpatient rehabilitation, geriatric rehabilitation, standardized response mean, relative efficiency
MeSH terms
Activities of Daily Living, Aged, Analysis of Variance, Humans, Prospective Studies, Surveys and Questionnaires, Regression Analysis, Sensitivity and Specificity, Telephone, Time Factors, Reproducibility of Results, Geriatric Assessment, Bias, Discriminant Analysis, Frail Elderly

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review