Dataset Information

Psychometric properties of the Late-Life Function and Disability Instrument: a systematic review.

ABSTRACT: The choice of measure for use as a primary outcome in geriatric research is contingent upon the construct of interest and evidence for its psychometric properties. The Late-Life Function and Disability Instrument (LLFDI) has been widely used to assess functional limitations and disability in studies with older adults. The primary aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the current available evidence for the psychometric properties of the LLFDI.Published studies of any design reporting results based on administration of the original version of the LLFDI in community-dwelling older adults were identified after searches of 9 electronic databases. Data related to construct validity (convergent/divergent and known-groups validity), test-retest reliability and sensitivity to change were extracted. Effect sizes were calculated for within-group changes and summarized graphically.Seventy-one studies including 17,301 older adults met inclusion criteria. Data supporting the convergent/divergent and known-groups validity for both the Function and Disability components were extracted from 30 and 18 studies, respectively. High test-retest reliability was found for the Function component, while results for the Disability component were more variable. Sensitivity to change of the LLFDI was confirmed based on findings from 25 studies. The basic lower extremity subscale and overall summary score of the Function component and limitation dimension of the Disability component were associated with the strongest relative effect sizes.There is extensive evidence to support the construct validity and sensitivity to change of the LLFDI among various clinical populations of community-dwelling older adults. Further work is needed on predictive validity and values for clinically important change. Findings from this review can be used to guide the selection of the most appropriate LLFDI subscale for use an outcome measure in geriatric research and practice.

SUBMITTER: Beauchamp MK

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3909447 | biostudies-other | 2014 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Psychometric properties of the Late-Life Function and Disability Instrument: a systematic review.

Beauchamp Marla K MK Schmidt Catherine T CT Pedersen Mette M MM Bean Jonathan F JF Jette Alan M AM

BMC geriatrics 20140129

<h4>Background</h4>The choice of measure for use as a primary outcome in geriatric research is contingent upon the construct of interest and evidence for its psychometric properties. The Late-Life Function and Disability Instrument (LLFDI) has been widely used to assess functional limitations and disability in studies with older adults. The primary aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the current available evidence for the psychometric properties of the LLFDI.<h4>Methods</h4>Published s ...[more]

PMID: 24476510

Similar Datasets

Project description:AimsOccupational Burnout (OB) is currently measured through several Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) and some of them have become widely used in occupational health research and practice. We, therefore, aimed to review and grade the psychometric validity of the five OB PROMs considered as valid for OB measure in mental health professionals (the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI), the Pines' Burnout Measure (BM), the Psychologist Burnout Inventory (PBI), the OLdenburg Burnout Inventory (OLBI) and the Copenhagen Burnout Inventory (CBI)).MethodsWe conducted systematic literature searches in MEDLINE, PsycINFO and EMBASE databases. We reviewed studies published between January 1980 and September 2018 following a methodological framework, in which each step of PROM validation, the reference method, analytical technics and result interpretation criteria were assessed. Using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments we evaluated the risk of bias in studies assessing content and criterion validity, structural validity, internal consistency, reliability, measurement error, hypotheses testing and responsiveness of each PROM. Finally, we assessed the level of evidence for the validity of each PROM using the GRADE approach.ResultsWe identified 6541 studies, 19 of which were included for review. Fifteen studies dealt with MBI whereas BM, PBI, OLBI and CBI were each examined in only one study. OLBI had the most complete validation, followed by CBI, MBI, BM and PBI, respectively. When examining the result interpretation correctness, the strongest disagreement was observed for MBI (27% of results), BM (25%) and CBI (17%). There was no disagreement regarding PBI and OLBI. For OLBI and CBI, the quality of evidence for sufficient content validity, the crucial psychometric property, was moderate; for MBI, BM and PBI, it was very low.ConclusionTo be validly and reliably used in medical research and practice, PROM should exhibit robust psychometric properties. Among the five PROMs reviewed, CBI and, to a lesser extent, OLBI meet this prerequisite. The cross-cultural validity of these PROMs was beyond the scope of our work and should be addressed in the future. Moreover, the development of a diagnostic standard for OB would be helpful to assess the sensitivity and specificity of the PROMs and further reexamine their validity.The study protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD 42019124621).

Project description:BackgroundSuboptimal health status (SHS) measurement has now been recognized as an essential construct in predictive, preventive, and personalized medicine. Currently, there are limited tools, and an ongoing debate about appropriate tools. Therefore, it is crucial to evaluate and generate conclusive evidence about the psychometric properties of available SHS tools.ObjectiveThis research aimed to identify and critically assess the psychometric properties of available SHS instruments and provide recommendations for their future use.MethodsArticles were retrieved by following the guidelines of the PRISMA checklist, and the robustness of methods and evidence about the measurement properties was assessed using the adapted COSMIN checklist. The review was registered in PROSPERO.ResultsThe systematic review identified 14 publications describing four subjective SHS measures with established psychometric properties; these included the Suboptimal Health Status Questionnaire-25 (SHSQ-25), Sub-health Measurement Scale Version 1.0 (SHMS V1.0), Multidimensional Sub-health Questionnaire of Adolescents (MSQA), and the Sub-Health Self-Rating Scale (SSS). Most studies were conducted in China and reported three reliability indices: (1) the internal consistency measured by Cronbach's α value ranged between 0.70 and 0.96; (2) the test-retest reliability; and (3) the split-half reliability coefficient values ranged between 0.64 and 0.98, and between 0.83 and 0.96, respectively. For the values of validity coefficients in the case of SHSQ-25 > 0.71, the SHMS-1.0 ranged from 0.64 to 0.87, and the SSS ranged from 0.74 to 0.96. Using these existing and well-characterized tools rather than constructing original tools is beneficial, given that the existing choice demonstrated sound psychometric properties and established norms.ConclusionsThe SHSQ-25 stood out as being more suitable for the general population and routine health surveys, because it is short and easy to complete. Therefore, there is a need to adapt this tool by translating it into other languages, including Arabic, and establishing norms based on populations from other regions of the world.

Project description:BackgroundThe important role of leaders in the translation of health research is acknowledged in the implementation science literature. However, the accurate measurement of leadership traits and behaviours in health professionals has not been directly addressed. This review aimed to identify whether scales which measure leadership traits and behaviours have been found to be reliable and valid for use with health professionals.MethodsA systematic review was conducted. MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Cochrane, CINAHL, Scopus, ABI/INFORMIT and Business Source Ultimate were searched to identify publications which reported original research testing the reliability, validity or acceptability of a leadership-related scale with health professionals.ResultsOf 2814 records, a total of 39 studies met the inclusion criteria, from which 33 scales were identified as having undergone some form of psychometric testing with health professionals. The most commonly used was the Implementation Leadership Scale (n = 5) and the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (n = 3). Of the 33 scales, the majority of scales were validated in English speaking countries including the USA (n = 15) and Canada (n = 4), but also with some translations and use in Europe and Asia, predominantly with samples of nurses (n = 27) or allied health professionals (n = 10). Only two validation studies included physicians. Content validity and internal consistency were evident for most scales (n = 30 and 29, respectively). Only 20 of the 33 scales were found to satisfy the acceptable thresholds for good construct validity. Very limited testing occurred in relation to test-re-test reliability, responsiveness, acceptability, cross-cultural revalidation, convergent validity, discriminant validity and criterion validity.ConclusionsSeven scales may be sufficiently sound to be used with professionals, primarily with nurses. There is an absence of validation of leadership scales with regard to physicians. Given that physicians, along with nurses and allied health professionals have a leadership role in driving the implementation of evidence-based healthcare, this constitutes a clear gap in the psychometric testing of leadership scales for use in healthcare implementation research and practice.Trial registrationThis review follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) (see Additional File 1) (PLoS Medicine. 6:e1000097, 2009) and the associated protocol has been registered with the PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (Registration Number CRD42019121544 ).

Dataset Information

Psychometric properties of the Late-Life Function and Disability Instrument: a systematic review.

Publications

Psychometric properties of the Late-Life Function and Disability Instrument: a systematic review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets