Cited by 118Aging, Health, and DisabilityGeriatric Care and Nursing HomesFrailty in Older Adults

Scaling functional status within the interRAI suite of assessment instruments

Open access
Morris, John N, Berg, Katherine, Fries, Brant E, Steel, Knight, Howard, Elizabeth P·2013·BMC Geriatrics

Abstract

BACKGROUND: As one ages, physical, cognitive, and clinical problems accumulate and the pattern of loss follows a distinct progression. The first areas requiring outside support are the Instrumental Activities of Daily Living and over time there is a need for support in performing the Activities of Daily Living. Two new functional hierarchies are presented, an IADL hierarchical capacity scale and a combination scale integrating both IADL and ADL hierarchies. METHODS: A secondary analyses of data from a cross-national sample of community residing persons was conducted using 762,023 interRAI assessments. The development of the new IADL Hierarchy and a new IADL-ADL combined scale proceeded through a series of interrelated steps first examining individual IADL and ADL item scores among persons receiving home care and those living independently without services. A factor analysis demonstrated the overall continuity across the IADL-ADL continuum. Evidence of the validity of the scales was explored with associative analyses of factors such as a cross-country distributional analysis for persons in home care programs, a count of functional problems across the categories of the hierarchy, an assessment of the hours of informal and formal care received each week by persons in the different categories of the hierarchy, and finally, evaluation of the relationship between cognitive status and the hierarchical IADL-ADL assignments. RESULTS: Using items from interRAI's suite of assessment instruments, two new functional scales were developed, the interRAI IADL Hierarchy Scale and the interRAI IADL-ADL Functional Hierarchy Scale. The IADL Hierarchy Scale consisted of 5 items, meal preparation, housework, shopping, finances and medications. The interRAI IADL-ADL Functional Hierarchy Scale was created through an amalgamation of the ADL Hierarchy (developed previously) and IADL Hierarchy Scales. These scales cover the spectrum of IADL and ADL challenges faced by persons in the community. CONCLUSIONS: An integrated IADL and ADL functional assessment tool is valuable. The loss in these areas follows a general hierarchical pattern and with the interRAI IADL-ADL Functional Hierarchy Scale, this progression can be reliably and validly assessed. Used across settings within the health continuum, it allows for monitoring of individuals from relative independence through episodes of care.

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 · 10.1186/1471-2318-13-128

Cites

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?

  • ADLs are typically the first activities that require outside support, with hygiene being an early-loss activity, toilet-use a mid-loss activity, and eating a late-loss activity.

    “These activities are typically the first ones that require outside support and it has been found that there is a progressive functional loss on them, with hygiene being an early-loss activity (i.e., this is one of the first ADL where it is likely that a person needs help from others), toilet-use a mid-loss activity, and eating a late-loss activity (Morris et al. 2013).”

Self-check

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

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

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 27 · Cited by 118

Authors
Morris, J. N., Berg, K., Fries, B. E., Steel, K., & Howard, E. P.
Affiliations
  • Hebrew SeniorLife (US)
  • University of Toronto (CA)
  • University of Michigan (US)
  • Hackensack University Medical Center (US)
  • Northeastern University (US)
Corresponding author
Morris, John N
Venue
BMC Geriatrics
Published
2013-11-21
Volume
13
Issue
1
Pages
128-128
ISSN
1471-2318 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2074371634
Cited by
118
References
27
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 1
FWCI
2.73
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMC Geriatrics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Deep Blue (University of Michigan) (submittedVersion)
  • TSpace (University of Toronto) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Aging, Health, and Disability
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Geriatric Care and Nursing Homes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Geriatrics and Gerontology › Frailty in Older Adults
Keywords
interRAI, functional status, instrumental activities of daily living, activities of daily living, home care, community-dwelling older adults, cognitive status, functional decline, scale development
MeSH terms
Activities of Daily Living, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Canada, Cross-Sectional Studies, Europe, Female, Home Care Services, Hong Kong, Humans, Male, United States, Cohort Studies, 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