Marla K Beauchamp1, Alan M Jette2, Rachel E Ward1, Laura A Kurlinski3, Dan Kiely3, Nancy K Latham2, Jonathan F Bean1. 1. Spaulding Rehabilitation, Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Harvard Medical School, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Spaulding Rehabilitation Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts. Health and Disability Research Institute, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts. 2. Health and Disability Research Institute, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts. 3. Spaulding Rehabilitation Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patient-reported and performance-based measures (PBMs) are commonly used to measure physical function in studies of older adults. Selection of appropriate measures to address specific research questions is complex and requires knowledge of relevant psychometric properties. The aim of this study was to examine the predictive validity for adverse outcomes and responsiveness of a widely used patient-reported measure, the Late-Life Function and Disability Instrument (LLFDI), compared with PBMs. METHODS: We analyzed 2 years of follow-up data from Boston RISE, a cohort study of 430 primary care patients aged ≥65 years. Logistic and linear regression models were used to examine predictive validity for adverse outcomes and effect size and minimal detectable change scores were computed to examine responsiveness. Performance-based functional measures included the Short Physical Performance Battery, 400-m walk, gait speed, and stair-climb power test. RESULTS: The LLFDI and PBMs showed high predictive validity for poor self-rated health, hospitalizations, and disability. The LLFDI function scale was the only measure that predicted falls. Absolute effect size estimates ranged from 0.54 to 0.64 for the LLFDI and from 0.34 to 0.63 for the PBMs. From baseline to 2 years, the percentage of participants with a change ≥ minimal detectable change was greatest for the LLFDI scales (46-59%) followed by the Short Physical Performance Battery (44%), gait speed (35%), 400-m walk (17%), and stair-climb power test (9%). CONCLUSIONS: The patient-reported LLFDI showed comparable psychometric properties to PBMs. Our findings support the use of the LLFDI as a primary outcome in gerontological research.
BACKGROUND:Patient-reported and performance-based measures (PBMs) are commonly used to measure physical function in studies of older adults. Selection of appropriate measures to address specific research questions is complex and requires knowledge of relevant psychometric properties. The aim of this study was to examine the predictive validity for adverse outcomes and responsiveness of a widely used patient-reported measure, the Late-Life Function and Disability Instrument (LLFDI), compared with PBMs. METHODS: We analyzed 2 years of follow-up data from Boston RISE, a cohort study of 430 primary care patients aged ≥65 years. Logistic and linear regression models were used to examine predictive validity for adverse outcomes and effect size and minimal detectable change scores were computed to examine responsiveness. Performance-based functional measures included the Short Physical Performance Battery, 400-m walk, gait speed, and stair-climb power test. RESULTS: The LLFDI and PBMs showed high predictive validity for poor self-rated health, hospitalizations, and disability. The LLFDI function scale was the only measure that predicted falls. Absolute effect size estimates ranged from 0.54 to 0.64 for the LLFDI and from 0.34 to 0.63 for the PBMs. From baseline to 2 years, the percentage of participants with a change ≥ minimal detectable change was greatest for the LLFDI scales (46-59%) followed by the Short Physical Performance Battery (44%), gait speed (35%), 400-m walk (17%), and stair-climb power test (9%). CONCLUSIONS: The patient-reported LLFDI showed comparable psychometric properties to PBMs. Our findings support the use of the LLFDI as a primary outcome in gerontological research.
Authors: J M Guralnik; L Ferrucci; C F Pieper; S G Leveille; K S Markides; G V Ostir; S Studenski; L F Berkman; R B Wallace Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2000-04 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Alan M Jette; Stephen M Haley; Wendy J Coster; Jill T Kooyoomjian; Suzette Levenson; Tim Heeren; Jacqueline Ashba Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2002-04 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Stephen M Haley; Alan M Jette; Wendy J Coster; Jill T Kooyoomjian; Suzette Levenson; Tim Heeren; Jacqueline Ashba Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2002-04 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: David B Reuben; Teresa E Seeman; Emmett Keeler; Risa P Hayes; Lee Bowman; Ase Sewall; Susan H Hirsch; Robert B Wallace; Jack M Guralnik Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2004-10 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: E M Simonsick; A B Newman; M C Nevitt; S B Kritchevsky; L Ferrucci; J M Guralnik; T Harris Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2001-10 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Rachel E Ward; Marla K Beauchamp; Nancy K Latham; Suzanne G Leveille; Sanja Percac-Lima; Laura Kurlinski; Pengsheng Ni; Richard Goldstein; Alan M Jette; Jonathan F Bean Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2016-04-04 Impact factor: 3.966
Authors: Alexandra J Mayhew; Lauren E Griffith; Anne Gilsing; Marla K Beauchamp; Ayse Kuspinar; Parminder Raina Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2020-01-01 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Molly W Vaughan; David T Felson; Michael P LaValley; Gael I Orsmond; Jingbo Niu; Cora E Lewis; Neil A Segal; Michael C Nevitt; Julie J Keysor Journal: Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) Date: 2017-06-02 Impact factor: 4.794
Authors: J J Suijker; M van Rijn; G Ter Riet; E P Moll van Charante; S E de Rooij; B M Buurman Journal: J Nutr Health Aging Date: 2017 Impact factor: 4.075
Authors: Marla K Beauchamp; Alan M Jette; Pengsheng Ni; Nancy K Latham; Rachel E Ward; Laura A Kurlinski; Sanja Percac-Lima; Suzanne G Leveille; Jonathan F Bean Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2015-09-13 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Catherine T Schmidt; Rachel E Ward; Pradeep Suri; Laura Kurlinski; Dennis E Anderson; Dan K Kiely; Jonathan F Bean Journal: J Geriatr Phys Ther Date: 2017 Jul/Sep Impact factor: 3.381