PURPOSE: We evaluated the Late-Life Function and Disability Instrument's (LLFDI) concurrent validity, comprehensiveness and precision by comparing it with the Short-Form-36 physical functioning (PF-10) and the London Handicap Scale (LHS). METHODS: We administered the LLFDI, PF-10 and LHS to 75 community-dwelling adults (> 60 years of age). We used Pearson correlation coefficients to examine concurrent validity and Rasch analysis to compare the item hierarchies, content ranges and precision of the PF-10 and LLFDI function domains, and the LHS and the LLFDI disability domains. RESULTS: LLFDI Function (lower extremity scales) and PF-10 scores were highly correlated (r = 0.74 - 0.86, p > 0.001); moderate correlations were found between the LHS and the LLFDI Disability limitation (r = 0.66, p < 0.0001) and Disability frequency (r = 0.47, p < 0.001) scores. The LLFDI had a wider range of content coverage, less ceiling effects and better relative precision across the spectrum of function and disability than the PF-10 and the LHS. The LHS had slightly more content range and precision in the lower end of the disability scale than the LLFDI. CONCLUSIONS: The LLFDI is a more comprehensive and precise instrument compared to the PF-10 and LHS for assessing function and disability in community-dwelling older adults.
PURPOSE: We evaluated the Late-Life Function and Disability Instrument's (LLFDI) concurrent validity, comprehensiveness and precision by comparing it with the Short-Form-36 physical functioning (PF-10) and the London Handicap Scale (LHS). METHODS: We administered the LLFDI, PF-10 and LHS to 75 community-dwelling adults (> 60 years of age). We used Pearson correlation coefficients to examine concurrent validity and Rasch analysis to compare the item hierarchies, content ranges and precision of the PF-10 and LLFDI function domains, and the LHS and the LLFDI disability domains. RESULTS: LLFDI Function (lower extremity scales) and PF-10 scores were highly correlated (r = 0.74 - 0.86, p > 0.001); moderate correlations were found between the LHS and the LLFDI Disability limitation (r = 0.66, p < 0.0001) and Disability frequency (r = 0.47, p < 0.001) scores. The LLFDI had a wider range of content coverage, less ceiling effects and better relative precision across the spectrum of function and disability than the PF-10 and the LHS. The LHS had slightly more content range and precision in the lower end of the disability scale than the LLFDI. CONCLUSIONS: The LLFDI is a more comprehensive and precise instrument compared to the PF-10 and LHS for assessing function and disability in community-dwelling older adults.
Authors: Xin Li; Daniel E Forman; Dan K Kiely; Sharon LaRose; Ronald Hirschberg; Walter R Frontera; Jonathan F Bean Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2012-02 Impact factor: 3.966