Test‐Retest Reliability of Pain Measures in Institutionalized Older Adults: Number of Painful Body Sites, Pain Intensity, and Pain Extent

Pain Practice ◽  
2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anabela G. Silva ◽  
Silvia De Francesco ◽  
Milton Rodrigues ◽  
Alexandra Queirós ◽  
Margarida Cerqueira
Keyword(s):  
Older Adults ◽  
Pain Intensity ◽  
Retest Reliability ◽  
Test Retest Reliability ◽  
Pain Extent

scholarly journals Cross-cultural adaptation, reliability and validity of the Fremantle Knee Awareness Questionnaire in Italian subjects with painful knee osteoarthritis

2021 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Marco Monticone ◽  
Cristiano Sconza ◽  
Igor Portoghese ◽  
Tomohiko Nishigami ◽  
Benedict M. Wand ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Construct Validity ◽  
Knee Osteoarthritis ◽  
Pain Intensity ◽  
Internal Consistency ◽  
Structural Validity ◽  
Retest Reliability ◽  
Knee Oa ◽  
Pain Catastrophising ◽  
Test Retest Reliability ◽  
Painful Knee

Abstract Background and aim Growing attention is being given to utilising physical function measures to better understand and manage knee osteoarthritis (OA). The Fremantle Knee Awareness Questionnaire (FreKAQ), a self-reported measure of body-perception specific to the knee, has never been validated in Italian patients. The aims of this study were to culturally adapt and validate the Italian version of the FreKAQ (FreKAQ-I), to allow for its use with Italian-speaking patients with painful knee OA. Methods The FreKAQ-I was developed by means of forward–backward translation, a final review by an expert committee and a test of the pre-final version to evaluate its comprehensibility. The psychometric testing included: internal structural validity by Rasch analysis; construct validity by assessing hypotheses of FreKAQ correlations with the knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score (KOOS), a pain intensity numerical rating scale (PI-NRS), the pain catastrophising scale (PCS), and the Hospital anxiety and depression score (HADS) (Pearson’s correlations); known-group validity by evaluating the ability of FreKAQ scores to discriminate between two groups of participants with different clinical profiles (Mann–Whitney U test); reliability by internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) and test–retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient, ICC2.1); and measurement error by calculating the minimum detectable change (MDC). Results It took one month to develop a consensus-based version of the FreKAQ-I. The questionnaire was administered to 102 subjects with painful knee OA and was well accepted. Internal structural validity confirmed the substantial unidimensionality of the FreKAQ-I: variance explained was 53.3%, the unexplained variance in the first contrast showed an eigenvalue of 1.8, and no local dependence was detected. Construct validity was good as all of the hypotheses were met; correlations: KOOS (rho = 0.38–0.51), PI-NRS (rho = 0.35–0.37), PCS (rho = 0.47) and HADS (Anxiety rho = 0.36; Depression rho = 0.43). Regarding known-groups validity, FreKAQ scores were significantly different between groups of participants demonstrating high and low levels of pain intensity, pain catastrophising, anxiety, depression and the four KOOS subscales (p ≤ 0.004). Internal consistency was acceptable (α = 0.74) and test–retest reliability was excellent (ICC = 0.92, CI 0.87–0.94). The MDC95 was 5.22 scale points. Conclusion The FreKAQ-I is unidimensional, reliable and valid in Italian patients with painful knee OA. Its use is recommended for clinical and research purposes.

scholarly journals Formative Evaluation of Consumer-Grade Activity Monitors Worn by Older Adults: Test-Retest Reliability and Criterion Validity of Step Counts (Preprint)

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephanie A Maganja ◽  
David C Clarke ◽  
Scott A Lear ◽  
Dawn C Mackey
Keyword(s):  
Older Adults ◽  
Activity Monitor ◽  
Criterion Validity ◽  
Step Count ◽  
Retest Reliability ◽  
Activity Monitors ◽  
Limited Mobility ◽  
Step Counts ◽  
Test Retest Reliability ◽  
Mobility Status

BACKGROUND To assess whether commercial-grade activity monitors are appropriate for measuring step counts in older adults, it is essential to evaluate their measurement properties in this population. OBJECTIVE This study aimed to evaluate test-retest reliability and criterion validity of step counting in older adults with self-reported intact and limited mobility from 6 commercial-grade activity monitors: Fitbit Charge, Fitbit One, Garmin vívofit 2, Jawbone UP2, Misfit Shine, and New-Lifestyles NL-1000. METHODS For test-retest reliability, participants completed two 100-step overground walks at a usual pace while wearing all monitors. We tested the effects of the activity monitor and mobility status on the absolute difference in step count error (%) and computed the standard error of measurement (SEM) between repeat trials. To assess criterion validity, participants completed two 400-meter overground walks at a usual pace while wearing all monitors. The first walk was continuous; the second walk incorporated interruptions to mimic the conditions of daily walking. Criterion step counts were from the researcher tally count. We estimated the effects of the activity monitor, mobility status, and walk interruptions on step count error (%). We also generated Bland-Altman plots and conducted equivalence tests. RESULTS A total of 36 individuals participated (n=20 intact mobility and n=16 limited mobility; 19/36, 53% female) with a mean age of 71.4 (SD 4.7) years and BMI of 29.4 (SD 5.9) kg/m<sup>2</sup>. Considering test-retest reliability, there was an effect of the activity monitor (<i>P</i>&lt;.001). The Fitbit One (1.0%, 95% CI 0.6% to 1.3%), the New-Lifestyles NL-1000 (2.6%, 95% CI 1.3% to 3.9%), and the Garmin vívofit 2 (6.0%, 95 CI 3.2% to 8.8%) had the smallest mean absolute differences in step count errors. The SEM values ranged from 1.0% (Fitbit One) to 23.5% (Jawbone UP2). Regarding criterion validity, all monitors undercounted the steps. Step count error was affected by the activity monitor (<i>P</i>&lt;.001) and walk interruptions (<i>P</i>=.02). Three monitors had small mean step count errors: Misfit Shine (−1.3%, 95% CI −19.5% to 16.8%), Fitbit One (−2.1%, 95% CI −6.1% to 2.0%), and New-Lifestyles NL-1000 (−4.3%, 95 CI −18.9% to 10.3%). Mean step count error was larger during interrupted walking than continuous walking (−5.5% vs −3.6%; <i>P</i>=.02). Bland-Altman plots illustrated nonsystematic bias and small limits of agreement for Fitbit One and Jawbone UP2. Mean step count error lay within an equivalence bound of ±5% for Fitbit One (<i>P</i>&lt;.001) and Misfit Shine (<i>P</i>=.001). CONCLUSIONS Test-retest reliability and criterion validity of step counting varied across 6 consumer-grade activity monitors worn by older adults with self-reported intact and limited mobility. Walk interruptions increased the step count error for all monitors, whereas mobility status did not affect the step count error. The hip-worn Fitbit One was the only monitor with high test-retest reliability and criterion validity.

scholarly journals The development and initial validation of the Chinese Significant Wish Fulfillment Scale

2010 ◽  
Vol 23 (3) ◽  
pp. 442-449
Author(s):  
Amy Y. M. Chow ◽  
Meetim Chow ◽  
Catherine K. P. Wan ◽  
Katherine K. L. Wong ◽  
Rita W. T. Cheung
Keyword(s):  
Older Adults ◽  
Factor Analysis ◽  
Convergent Validity ◽  
Internal Reliability ◽  
Retest Reliability ◽  
Confirmatory Factor ◽  
Wish Fulfillment ◽  
Test Retest Reliability ◽  
Development And Validation ◽  
Depth Interviews

ABSTRACTBackground: This paper reports the development and validation of the Chinese Significant Wish Fulfillment Scale (CSWFS), a new multidimensional scale for assessing the perceived importance and level of fulfillment of wishes of older adults.Methods: Three studies were involved. Study 1 developed a 26-item pool on wish fulfillment through in-depth interviews with 22 older adults. Study 2 reduced the pool to 23 items through validation with a new sample of 315 older adults and examined the internal reliability. Study 3 involved a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and examined the test-retest reliability and the convergent validity of the scale with the construct of regret.Results: A five-factor structure model of 23 items was identified through exploratory factor analysis, which accounted for 51.67% of variance. As informed by the CFA in Study 3, a five-factor 22-item model was the best fit. Internal reliability and test-retest reliability was found to be good. Convergent validity was examined through correlation with the construct of future regret. The correlation, though statistically significant, was small.Conclusion: CSWFS demonstrates good psychometric properties, but the construct might be slightly different from that of future regrets. Probably, CSWFS addresses a construct that is under-explored but is of importance to older adults and especially to the Chinese community.

Test-retest Reliability Of A Computerized Balance Assessment On Static And Dynamic Balance In Older Adults

2011 ◽  
Vol 43 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 711
Author(s):  
Makoto Narita ◽  
Daisuke Koizumi ◽  
Nobuo Takeshima ◽  
Nicole L. Rogers ◽  
Michael E. Rogers
Keyword(s):  
Older Adults ◽  
Dynamic Balance ◽  
Balance Assessment ◽  
Retest Reliability ◽  
Test Retest Reliability

scholarly journals The Modified Gait Efficacy Scale: Establishing the Psychometric Properties in Older Adults

2012 ◽  
Vol 92 (2) ◽  
pp. 318-328 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alaina M. Newell ◽  
Jessie M. VanSwearingen ◽  
Elizabeth Hile ◽  
Jennifer S. Brach
Keyword(s):  
Older Adults ◽  
Correlation Coefficient ◽  
Internal Consistency ◽  
Intraclass Correlation ◽  
Community Dwelling ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Retest Reliability ◽  
And Performance ◽  
Test Retest Reliability ◽  
Community Dwelling Older Adults

BackgroundPerceived ability or confidence plays an important role in determining function and behavior. The modified Gait Efficacy Scale (mGES) is a 10-item self-report measure used to assess walking confidence under challenging everyday circumstances.ObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to determine the reliability, internal consistency, and validity of the mGES as a measure of gait in older adults.DesignThis was a cross-sectional study.MethodsParticipants were 102 community-dwelling older adults (mean [±SD] age=78.6±6.1 years) who were independent in ambulation with or without an assistive device. Participants were assessed using the mGES and measures of confidence and fear, measures of function and disability, and performance-based measures of mobility. In a subsample (n=26), the mGES was administered twice within a 1-month period to establish test-retest reliability through the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC [2,1]). The standard error of measure (SEM) was determined from the ICC and standard deviation. The Cronbach α value was calculated to determine internal consistency. To establish the validity of the mGES, the Spearman rank order correlation coefficient was used to examine the association with measures of confidence, fear, gait, and physical function and disability.ResultsThe mGES demonstrated test-retest reliability within the 1-month period (ICC=.93, 95% confidence interval=.85, .97). The SEM of the mGES was 5.23. The mGES was internally consistent across the 10 items (Cronbach α=.94). The mGES was related to measures of confidence and fear (r=.54–.88), function and disability (Late-Life Function and Disability Instrument, r=.32–.88), and performance-based mobility (r=.38–.64).LimitationsThis study examined only community-dwelling older adults. The results, therefore, should not be generalized to other patient populations.ConclusionThe mGES is a reliable and valid measure of confidence in walking among community-dwelling older adults.

The Groningen Meander Walking Test: A Dynamic Walking Test for Older Adults With Dementia

2014 ◽  
Vol 94 (2) ◽  
pp. 262-272 ◽  
Author(s):  
Willem J.R. Bossers ◽  
Lucas H.V. van der Woude ◽  
Froukje Boersma ◽  
Erik J.A. Scherder ◽  
Marieke J.G. van Heuvelen
Keyword(s):  
Older Adults ◽  
Test Performance ◽  
Adherence Rate ◽  
Test Duration ◽  
Dynamic Walking ◽  
Time Score ◽  
Walking Test ◽  
Retest Reliability ◽  
People With Dementia ◽  
Test Retest Reliability

BackgroundCurrent dynamic walking tests, used in studies with older adults with dementia, rely strongly on healthy cognitive and physical function. Therefore, the Groningen Meander Walking Test (GMWT) was developed specifically for people with dementia. The aim of the GMWT is to measure dynamic walking ability by walking over a meandering curved line, with an emphasis on walking speed and stepping accuracy, while changing direction.ObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to investigate the feasibility, test-retest reliability, and minimal detectable change (MDC) of the GMWT.DesignA repeated-measures design was used.MethodsForty-two people with dementia participated in the study. Adherence rate, adverse events, repetition of instructions during test performance, test duration, and number of oversteps were assessed.ResultsThe adherence rate was excellent, with no adverse events. No repetitive instructions were given during test performance, and test duration was short (mean=17.16 seconds) with few oversteps (mean=1.94 oversteps). Test-retest reliability for participants without a walking device was excellent for the GMWT time score (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC]=.942), with an MDC of 2.96 seconds. Test-retest reliability for participants with a 4-wheeled walker (4WW) was moderate (ICC=.837), with an MDC of 10.35 seconds. For the overstep score, a marginal ICC of .630 was found, with an MDC of 4.38 oversteps.LimitationsNo fall data were available, and there was a volunteer bias.ConclusionsThe GMWT is a feasible test for people with dementia. With the GMWT time score, a reliable and sensitive field test to measure walking abilities in older adults with dementia is available. The GMWT overstep score can be used to give information about the execution according to protocol and should be emphasized during the instructions. Future studies need to investigate the validity of the GMWT.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document