Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 2,972

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Measurement of Functional Activities in Older Adults in the Community

Pfeffer, R. I., Kurosaki, T. T., Harrah, C. H., Chance, J. M., Filos, S.·1982·Journal of Gerontology

Abstract

Two measures of social function designed for community studies of normal aging and mild senile dementia were evaluated in 195 older adults who underwent neurological, cognitive, and affective assessment. An examining and a reviewing neurologist and a neurologically trained nurse independently rated each on a scale of functional capacity. Interrater reliability was high (examining Vs. reviewing neurologist, r = .97; examining neurologist Vs. Nurse, tau b = .802; p < .001 for both comparisons). Estimates Correlated well with an established measure of social function and with results of cognitive tests. Alternate Informants Evaluated participants on the functional activities questionnaire and the Instrumental Activities of Daily Living Scale. The Functional Activities Questionnaire was superior to the Instrumental Activities of Daily Living Scale in discriminating among functional levels and in predicting neurologist ratings and cognitive scores. Used alone as a diagnostic tool, the Functional Activities Questionnaire was more sensitive than the Instrumental Activities of Daily Living Scale (.85 vs. .57) and almost as specific (.81 Vs. .92) in distinguishing between normal and demented individuals.

Overview

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/geronj/37.3.323

Cites

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Pfeffer, R. I., Kurosaki, T. T., Harrah, C. H., Chance, J. M., & Filos, S.
Venue
Journal of Gerontology
Published
1982-05-01
Volume
37
Issue
3
Pages
323-329
ISSN
0022-1422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2085870059
Cited by
2,972
References
0
FWCI
1.86
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.