BACKGROUND AND AIMS: To compare the predictive power of physical function assessed by questionnaire and physical performance measures for subsequent disability in community-dwelling elderly persons. METHODS: Prospective cohort study. Participants were 813 aged 70 years and older, elderly Japanese residing in the community, included in the Tsurugaya Project, who were not disabled at the baseline in 2003. Physical function was assessed by the questionnaire of "Motor Fitness Scale". Physical performance measures consisted of maximum walking velocity, timed up and go test (TUG), leg extension power, and functional reach test. The area under the curve (AUC) of the receiver operating characteristic curve for disability was used to compare screening accuracy between Motor Fitness Scale and physical performance measures. Incident disability, defined as certification for long-term care insurance, was used as the endpoint. RESULTS: We observed 135 cases of incident disability during follow-up. The third or fourth quartile for each measure was associated with a significantly increased risk of disability in comparison with the highest quartile. The AUC was 0.70, 0.72, 0.70, 0.68, 0.69 and 0.74, for Motor Fitness Scale, maxi- mum walking velocity, TUG, leg extension power, functional reach test, and total performance score, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The predictive power of physical function assessed by the Motor Fitness Scale was equivalent to that assessed by physical performance measures. Since Motor Fitness Scale can evaluate physical function safely and simply in comparison with physical performance tests, it would be a practical tool for screening persons at high risk of disability.
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: To compare the predictive power of physical function assessed by questionnaire and physical performance measures for subsequent disability in community-dwelling elderly persons. METHODS: Prospective cohort study. Participants were 813 aged 70 years and older, elderly Japanese residing in the community, included in the Tsurugaya Project, who were not disabled at the baseline in 2003. Physical function was assessed by the questionnaire of "Motor Fitness Scale". Physical performance measures consisted of maximum walking velocity, timed up and go test (TUG), leg extension power, and functional reach test. The area under the curve (AUC) of the receiver operating characteristic curve for disability was used to compare screening accuracy between Motor Fitness Scale and physical performance measures. Incident disability, defined as certification for long-term care insurance, was used as the endpoint. RESULTS: We observed 135 cases of incident disability during follow-up. The third or fourth quartile for each measure was associated with a significantly increased risk of disability in comparison with the highest quartile. The AUC was 0.70, 0.72, 0.70, 0.68, 0.69 and 0.74, for Motor Fitness Scale, maxi- mum walking velocity, TUG, leg extension power, functional reach test, and total performance score, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The predictive power of physical function assessed by the Motor Fitness Scale was equivalent to that assessed by physical performance measures. Since Motor Fitness Scale can evaluate physical function safely and simply in comparison with physical performance tests, it would be a practical tool for screening persons at high risk of disability.