Nerea González1, Amaia Bilbao2, Maria Joao Forjaz3, Alba Ayala3, Miren Orive4, Susana Garcia-Gutierrez4, Carlota Las Hayas5, Jose Maria Quintana4. 1. Research Unit, Hospital Galdakao-Usansolo, Red de Investigación en Servicios de Salud en Enfermedades Crónicas (REDISSEC), Bº Labeaga, 46A, 48960, Galdakao, Bizkaia, Spain. nerea.gonzalezhernandez@osakidetza.eus. 2. Research Unit, Hospital Universitario Basurto, Red de Investigación en Servicios de Salud en Enfermedades Crónicas (REDISSEC), Bilbao, Bizkaia, Spain. 3. National School of Public Health, Institute of Health Carlos III, Red de Investigación en Servicios de Salud en Enfermedades Crónicas (REDISSEC), Madrid, Spain. 4. Research Unit, Hospital Galdakao-Usansolo, Red de Investigación en Servicios de Salud en Enfermedades Crónicas (REDISSEC), Bº Labeaga, 46A, 48960, Galdakao, Bizkaia, Spain. 5. Basque Foundation for Health Innovation and Research (BIOEF), Red de Investigación en Servicios de Salud en Enfermedades Crónicas (REDISSEC), Barakaldo, Bizkaia, Spain.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Barthel Index is one of the most employed questionnaires for the evaluation of functionality, but there is no information on its psychometric properties. OBJECTIVE: The aim was to evaluate the reliability, validity, and responsiveness of the Spanish version of the Barthel Index. METHODS: The data employed in this paper were obtained from four Spanish cohorts of elderly people of 60 years or older. We collected data on age, gender, education level, comorbidities, and questionnaires regarding functionality, health-related quality of life, depression, and social support. RESULTS: The Cronbach's alpha coefficients were greater than 0.70. The confirmatory factor analysis provided satisfactory fit indexes and factor loadings. The correlation coefficients between the Barthel Index and the other questionnaires were lower than the Cronbach's alpha coefficients. Known-groups validity showed significant differences in the Barthel Index according to age, number of comorbidities, and gender. The standardized effect size and the standardized response mean were between 0.68 and 1.81. DISCUSSION: This version of the Barthel Index has good reliability, its structural validity has been confirmed, and the questionnaire can discriminate between groups and detect changes at follow-up points. CONCLUSIONS: This questionnaire can be used in the evaluation of functionality and basic activities of daily living in elderly people with different conditions.
BACKGROUND: The Barthel Index is one of the most employed questionnaires for the evaluation of functionality, but there is no information on its psychometric properties. OBJECTIVE: The aim was to evaluate the reliability, validity, and responsiveness of the Spanish version of the Barthel Index. METHODS: The data employed in this paper were obtained from four Spanish cohorts of elderly people of 60 years or older. We collected data on age, gender, education level, comorbidities, and questionnaires regarding functionality, health-related quality of life, depression, and social support. RESULTS: The Cronbach's alpha coefficients were greater than 0.70. The confirmatory factor analysis provided satisfactory fit indexes and factor loadings. The correlation coefficients between the Barthel Index and the other questionnaires were lower than the Cronbach's alpha coefficients. Known-groups validity showed significant differences in the Barthel Index according to age, number of comorbidities, and gender. The standardized effect size and the standardized response mean were between 0.68 and 1.81. DISCUSSION: This version of the Barthel Index has good reliability, its structural validity has been confirmed, and the questionnaire can discriminate between groups and detect changes at follow-up points. CONCLUSIONS: This questionnaire can be used in the evaluation of functionality and basic activities of daily living in elderly people with different conditions.
Authors: Ana Belén Gámez; Juan José Hernandez Morante; José Luis Martínez Gil; Francisco Esparza; Carlos Manuel Martínez Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2019-09-11 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Ana Soto-Rubio; Selene Valero-Moreno; José Luis Díaz; Yolanda Andreu; Marián Pérez-Marín Journal: PLoS One Date: 2020-10-16 Impact factor: 3.240