4.4 Article

Comparing alternative measures of functional limitation

期刊

MEDICAL CARE
卷 42, 期 1, 页码 19-27

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/01.mlr.0000102293.37107.c5

关键词

functional limitations; measurement; disability assessment; women; activities of daily living

资金

  1. NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON AGING [R01AG011564, R29AG011564] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  2. NIA NIH HHS [AG11564] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Functional limitation is a central concept in the disability process, but its operationalization has varied widely, making it impossible to compare results across studies. Objective: Our goal is to systematically compare the effectiveness of alternative measures of functional limitations to predict disability and to provide guidelines for their standardization. Design: Over 100 alternative scales of functional limitations are compared in regression models of disability. The Bayesian information criterion is used to compare the performance of measures. Subjects: The subjects were 5764 women, aged 37 to 68, from the Mature and Young Women's cohorts of the National Longitudinal Surveys. Measures: Scales are constructed from 9 indicators of activity limitations: (1) grasping, (2) lifting/carrying up to 10 pounds, (3) lifting/carrying heavy weights, (4) reaching, (5) sitting, (6) stairs, (7) standing, (8) stooping, and (9) walking. Respondents were asked whether they could perform the activity without difficulty, with difficulty, or could not perform it at all. The 4 disability outcomes include binary and ordinal measures of work limitation, a single ADL measure (bathing), and total number of ADLs. Results: The 3 best scales used all 9 indicators. The top scale truncated values above 5, while the others logged the sum. Two scales were based on sums of binary indicators, while the third used 3 category indicators. Conclusions: Simple scales perform better than complex scales that separate upper and lower body limitations or weight some limitations more than others. Scales that transform higher values are preferable.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据