Cited by 413Frailty in Older AdultsBalance, Gait, and Falls PreventionAging, Health, and Disability

Performance-based physical function in older community-dwelling persons: a systematic review of instruments

Open access
Freiberger, Ellen, de Vreede, Paul, Schoene, Daniel, Rydwik, Elisabeth, Mueller, Volker, Frändin, Kerstin, Hopman-Rock, Marijke·2012·Age and Ageing

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Identification of older persons at risk for the loss of independence, onset of (co)-morbidity or functional limitations through screening/assessment is of interest for the public health-care system. To date several different measurement instruments for overall physical function are frequently used in practice, but little information about their psychometric properties is available. Objectives and METHODS: Our aim was to assess instruments with an overall score related to functional status and/or physical performance on content and psychometric properties. Electronic databases (Medline, EMBASE, AMED, Cochrane Library and CINAHL) were searched, using MeSH terms and relevant keywords. Studies, published in English, were included if their primary or secondary purpose was to evaluate the measurement properties of measurement instruments for overall physical function in community-dwelling older persons aged 60 years and older. Reliability, validity, responsiveness and practicability were evaluated, adhering to a specified protocol. RESULTS: In total 78 articles describing 12 different functional assessment instruments were included and data extracted. Seven instruments, including their modified versions, were evaluated for reliability. Nine instruments, including their modified versions, were evaluated with regard to validity. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, the Short Physical Performance Battery can be recommended most highly in terms of validity, reliability and responsiveness, followed by the Physical Performance Test and Continuous Scale Physical Functional Performance.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/ageing/afs099

Cites

29 of 29 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Physical function measures are well validated and widely used to assess function in older adults.

    “These measures are well validated and widely used to assess function in older adults.22”

    From Comparison of Power Training vs Traditional Strength Training on Physical Function in Older Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (2022) · cites this paper as [22]

    The Abstract (p. 1) says several physical-function instruments are frequently used in practice. But the Discussion (p. 7) says only 3 of 12 reviewed instruments met all the review’s criteria and warns that many commonly used instruments are not well validated. The claim overgeneralizes their validation. (LLM, conf=0.89)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • All reported outcomes rely on the integration of several health and skill-related domains, thus the results may have been influenced by changes in rate of force development, maximal strength or a combination of both.

    “All of the reported outcomes rely on the integration of several health and skill-related domains, 88 thus the results may have been in fl uenced by changes in rate of force development, maximal strength or a combination of both. 88 -90”

    From High-velocity power training has similar effects to traditional resistance training for functional performance in older adults: a systematic review (2023) · cites this paper as [88]

    The Introduction (p. 2) describes overall physical-function scores as combining different physiological domains, and the Description of instruments (p. 4) lists tests combining varied activities. This supports the multidomain point, but the paper does not say that changes in rate of force development, maximal strength, or both influenced the reported outcomes. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The SPPB has predictive validity showing a gradient of risk for mortality, nursing home admission, and disability.

    “The SPPB has been shown to have predictive validity showing a gradient of risk for mortality, nursing home admission, and disability.”

    From CareACT - internet-based intervention for enhancing the psychological well-being of elderly caregivers - a study protocol of a controlled trial (2019) · cites this paper as [39]

    The Validity section (p. 6) reports predictive validity for SPPB with respect to mortality and several disability-related outcomes, including difficulty with daily activities. It does not report predictive validity for nursing home admission or a gradient of risk across these outcomes. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The SPPB is a reliable and valid instrument.

    “Studies show that the SPPB is a reliable and valid instrument [39].”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Freiberger, E., de Vreede, P., Schoene, D., Rydwik, E., Mueller, V., Frändin, K., & Hopman-Rock, M.
Affiliations
  • Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg (DE)
  • Neuroscience Research Australia (AU)
  • Karolinska Institutet (SE)
Corresponding author
Freiberger, Ellen
Venue
Age and Ageing
Published
2012-08-10
Volume
41
Issue
6
Pages
712-721
ISSN
  • 0002-0729 (ISSN-L)
  • 1468-2834
OpenAlex
W2159560806
Cited by
413
References
29
Citations by year
2026: 25 · 2025: 40 · 2024: 26 · 2023: 46 · 2022: 68 · 2021: 35 · 2020: 43 · 2019: 31 · 2018: 21 · 2017: 25 · 2016: 19 · 2015: 19 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 2
FWCI
0.92
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Age and Ageing (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Pure Amsterdam UMC (publishedVersion)
  • Amsterdam UMC (VU Amsterdam) - Institutional Repository (publishedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (publishedVersion)
  • TNO Repository (submittedVersion)
  • Digital Academic REpository of VU University Amsterdam (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam) (submittedVersion)
  • Repository hosted by TU Delft Library (TU Delft) (submittedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development
  • National Institutes of Health
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Geriatrics and Gerontology › Frailty in Older Adults
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation › Balance, Gait, and Falls Prevention
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Aging, Health, and Disability
Keywords
physical function, older adults, community-dwelling older adults, functional assessment instruments, psychometric properties, reliability statistics, validity, responsiveness, Short Physical Performance Battery, physical performance tests, functional status, measurement instruments
MeSH terms
Activities of Daily Living, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Disability Evaluation, Humans, Physical Fitness, Psychometrics, Residence Characteristics, Reproducibility of Results, Geriatric Assessment

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