Cited by 169Frailty in Older AdultsAging, Health, and DisabilityPharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes

The psychometric properties of three self-report screening instruments for identifying frail older people in the community

Open access
Metzelthin, Silke F, Daniëls, Ramon, van Rossum, Erik, de Witte, Luc, van den Heuvel, Wim JA, Kempen, Gertrudis IJM·2010·BMC Public Health

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Frailty is highly prevalent in older people. Its serious adverse consequences, such as disability, are considered to be a public health problem. Therefore, disability prevention in community-dwelling frail older people is considered to be a priority for research and clinical practice in geriatric care. With regard to disability prevention, valid screening instruments are needed to identify frail older people in time. The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the psychometric properties of three screening instruments: the Groningen Frailty Indicator (GFI), the Tilburg Frailty Indicator (TFI) and the Sherbrooke Postal Questionnaire (SPQ). For validation purposes the Groningen Activity Restriction Scale (GARS) was added. METHODS: A questionnaire was sent to 687 community-dwelling older people (> or = 70 years). Agreement between instruments, internal consistency, and construct validity of instruments were evaluated and compared. RESULTS: The response rate was 77%. Prevalence estimates of frailty ranged from 40% to 59%. The highest agreement was found between the GFI and the TFI (Cohen's kappa = 0.74). Cronbach's alpha for the GFI, the TFI and the SPQ was 0.73, 0.79 and 0.26, respectively. Scores on the three instruments correlated significantly with each other (GFI - TFI, r = 0.87; GFI - SPQ, r = 0.47; TFI - SPQ, r = 0.42) and with the GARS (GFI - GARS, r = 0.57; TFI - GARS, r = 0.61; SPQ - GARS, r = 0.46). The GFI and the TFI scores were, as expected, significantly related to age, sex, education and income. CONCLUSIONS: The GFI and the TFI showed high internal consistency and construct validity in contrast to the SPQ. Based on these findings it is not yet possible to conclude whether the GFI or the TFI should be preferred; data on the predictive values of both instruments are needed. The SPQ seems less appropriate for postal screening of frailty among community-dwelling older people.

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 · 10.1186/1471-2458-10-176

Cites

38 of 38 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?

  • The timed-up-and-go test and hand grip strength have been investigated as potential single assessments to detect frailty.

    “The timed-up-and-go test (TUGT), a simple standardised measure of gait speed that requires a stop watch (105), and hand grip strength that requires a hand-held dynamometer (106), have been investigated as potential single assessments to detect frailty.”

    From Frailty in elderly people (2013) · cites this paper as [105]

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

1 of the 39 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Nunnally JC: Psychometric theory 2nd edition. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1978.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Metzelthin, S. F., Daniëls, R., van Rossum, E., de Witte, L., van den Heuvel, W. J., & Kempen, G. I.
Affiliations
  • Maastricht University (NL)
  • Zuyd University of Applied Sciences (NL)
Corresponding author
Metzelthin, Silke F
Venue
BMC Public Health
Published
2010-03-31
Volume
10
Issue
1
Pages
176-176
ISSN
1471-2458 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2065281435
Cited by
169
References
39
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 21 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 16 · 2012: 20
FWCI
6.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMC Public Health (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • White Rose Research Online (University of Leeds, The University of Sheffield, University of York) (acceptedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • Universiteit Maastricht
  • Zuyd Hogeschool
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Geriatrics and Gerontology › Frailty in Older Adults
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Aging, Health, and Disability
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Geriatrics and Gerontology › Pharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes
Keywords
frailty, frailty screening, community-dwelling older adults, Groningen Frailty Indicator, Tilburg Frailty Indicator, psychometric properties, internal consistency, construct validity, inter-instrument agreement, disability prevention
MeSH terms
Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Community Health Services, Female, Health Services for the Aged, Humans, Male, Mass Screening, Netherlands, Psychometrics, Surveys and Questionnaires, Residence Characteristics, Geriatric Assessment, Prevalence, Frail Elderly, Self Report

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