Multidimensional structure of the Groningen Frailty Indicator in community-dwelling older people

Annemiek Bielderman, Cees P van der Schans, Marie-Rose J van Lieshout, Mathieu Hg de Greef, Froukje Boersma, Wim P Krijnen, Nardi Steverink, Annemiek Bielderman, Cees P van der Schans, Marie-Rose J van Lieshout, Mathieu Hg de Greef, Froukje Boersma, Wim P Krijnen, Nardi Steverink

Abstract

Background: Due to the rapidly increasing number of older people worldwide, the prevalence of frailty among older adults is expected to escalate in coming decades. It is crucial to recognize early onset symptoms to initiate specific preventive care. Therefore, early detection of frailty with appropriate screening instruments is needed. The aim of this study was to evaluate the underlying dimensionality of the Groningen Frailty Indicator (GFI), a widely used self-report screening instrument for identifying frail older adults. In addition, criterion validity of GFI subscales was examined and composition of GFI scores was evaluated.

Methods: A cross-sectional study design was used to evaluate the structural validity, internal consistency and criterion validity of the GFI questionnaire in older adults aged 65 years and older. All subjects completed the GFI questionnaire (n = 1508). To assess criterion validity, a smaller sample of 119 older adults completed additional questionnaires: De Jong Gierveld Loneliness Scale, Hospital Anxiety Depression Scale, RAND-36 physical functioning, and perceived general health item of the EuroQol-5D. Exploratory factor analysis and Mokken scale analysis were used to evaluate the structural validity of the GFI. A Venn diagram was constructed to show the composition of GFI subscale scores for frail subjects.

Results: The factor structure of the GFI supported a three-dimensional structure of the scale. The subscales Daily Activities and Psychosocial Functioning showed good internal consistency, scalability, and criterion validity (Daily Activities: Cronbach's α = 0.81, H(s) = .84, r = -.62; Psychosocial Functioning: Cronbach's α = 0.80, H(s) = .35, r = -.48). The subscale Health Problems showed less strong internal consistency but acceptable scalability and criterion validity (Cronbach's α = .57, H(s) = .35, r = -.48). The present data suggest that 90% of the frail older adults experience problems in the Psychosocial Functioning domain.

Conclusions: The present findings support a three-dimensional factor structure of the GFI, suggesting that a multidimensional assessment of frailty with the GFI is possible. These GFI subscale scores produce a richer assessment of frailty than with a single overall sum GFI score, and likely their use will contribute to more directed and customized care for older adults.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Venn diagram of the frequency distribution of subscale scores for persons with a total GFI-score ≥4 (N = 540).

References

    1. Fried LP, Tangen CM, Walston J, Newman AB, Hirsch C, Gottdiener J, Seeman T, Tracy R, Kop WJ, Burke G. Frailty in older adults: evidence for a phenotype. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2001;56(3):146–157. doi: 10.1093/gerona/56.3.M146.
    1. Fried LP, Ferrucci L, Darer J, Williamson JD, Anderson G. Untangling the concepts of disability, frailty, and comorbidity: implications for improved targeting and care. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2004;59(3):255–263. doi: 10.1093/gerona/59.3.M255.
    1. Ahmed N, Mandel R, Fain MJ. Frailty: an emerging geriatric syndrome. Am J Med. 2007;120(9):748–753. doi: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2006.10.018.
    1. Etman A, Burdorf A, Van der Cammen TJM, Mackenbach JP, Van Lenthe FJ. Socio-demographic determinants of worsening in frailty among community-dwelling older people in 11 European countries. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2012;66:1116–1121. doi: 10.1136/jech-2011-200027.
    1. Peterson MJ, Giuliani C, Morey MC, Pieper CF, Evenson KR, Mercer V, Cohen HJ, Visser M, Brach JS, Kritchevsky SB. Physical activity as a preventative factor for frailty: the health, aging, and body composition study. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2009;64(1):61–68.
    1. Chin A, Paw M, van Uffelen JG, Riphagen I, Van MW. The functional effects of physical exercise training in frail older people: a systematic review. Sports Med. 2008;38(9):781–793. doi: 10.2165/00007256-200838090-00006.
    1. Theou O, Stathokostas L, Roland KP, Jakobi JM, Patterson C, Vandervoort AA, Jones GR. The effectiveness of exercise interventions for the management of frailty: a systematic review. J Aging Res 2011. 2011.
    1. Eklund K, Wilhelmson K. Outcomes of coordinated and integrated interventions targeting frail elderly people: a systematic review of randomised controlled trials. Health Soc Care Community. 2009;17(5):447–458. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2524.2009.00844.x.
    1. De Vries N, Staal J, van Ravensberg C, Hobbelen J, Olde Rikkert M, Nijhuis-van der Sanden M. Outcome instruments to measure frailty: a systematic review. Ageing Res Rev. 2011;10(1):104–114. doi: 10.1016/j.arr.2010.09.001.
    1. Carrière I, Colvez A, Favier F, Jeandel C, Blain H. Hierarchical components of physical frailty predicted incidence of dependency in a cohort of elderly women. J Clin Epidemiol. 2005;58(11):1180–1187. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.02.018.
    1. Gobbens RJJ, van Assen MALM, Luijkx KG, Wijnen-Sponselee MT, Schols JMGA. The Tilburg Frailty Indicator: psychometric properties. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2010;11(5):344–355. doi: 10.1016/j.jamda.2009.11.003.
    1. Guilley E, Ghisletta P, Armi F, Berchtold A, d’Epinay CL, Michel JP, De Ribaupierre A. Dynamics of frailty and ADL dependence in a five-year longitudinal study of octogenarians. Res Aging. 2008;30(3):299–317. doi: 10.1177/0164027507312115.
    1. Jones DM, Song X, Rockwood K. Operationalizing a frailty index from a standardized comprehensive geriatric assessment. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2004;52(11):1929–1933. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2004.52521.x.
    1. Kiely DK, Cupples LA, Lipsitz LA. Validation and comparison of two frailty indexes: The MOBILIZE Boston Study. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2009;57(9):1532–1539. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2009.02394.x.
    1. Mitnitski AB, Mogilner AJ, Rockwood K. Accumulation of deficits as a proxy measure of aging. ScientificWorldJournal. 2001;1:323–336.
    1. Puts MTE, Lips P, Deeg DJH. Sex differences in the risk of frailty for mortality independent of disability and chronic diseases. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2004;53(1):40–47.
    1. Ravaglia G, Forti P, Lucicesare A, Pisacane N, Rietti E, Patterson C. Development of an easy prognostic score for frailty outcomes in the aged. Age Ageing. 2008;37(2):161–166. doi: 10.1093/ageing/afm195.
    1. Rolfson DB, Majumdar SR, Tsuyuki RT, Tahir A, Rockwood K. Validity and reliability of the Edmonton Frail Scale. Age Ageing. 2006;35(5):526–529. doi: 10.1093/ageing/afl041.
    1. Rothman MD, Leo‒Summers L, Gill TM. Prognostic significance of potential frailty criteria. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2008;56(12):2211–2216. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2008.02008.x.
    1. Saliba D, Elliott M, Rubenstein LZ, Solomon DH, Young RT, Kamberg CJ, Roth C, MacLean CH, Shekelle PG, Sloss EM. The vulnerable elders survey: a tool for identifying vulnerable older people in the community. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2001;49(12):1691–1699. doi: 10.1046/j.1532-5415.2001.49281.x.
    1. Scarcella P, Liotta G, Marazzi M, Carbini R, Palombi L. Analysis of survival in a sample of elderly patients from Ragusa, Italy on the basis of a primary care level multidimensional evaluation. Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2005;40(2):147–156. doi: 10.1016/j.archger.2004.07.004.
    1. Steverink N, Slaets J, Schuurmans H, Van Lis M. Measuring frailty: developing and testing of the Groningen Frailty Indicator (GFI) Gerontologist. 2001;41(1):236–237.
    1. Studenski S, Hayes RP, Leibowitz RQ, Bode R, Lavery L, Walston J, Duncan P, Perera S. Clinical global impression of change in physical frailty: development of a measure based on clinical judgment. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2004;52(9):1560–1566. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2004.52423.x.
    1. Frieswijk N, Buunk BP, Steverink N, Slaets JPJ. The interpretation of social comparison and its relation to life satisfaction among elderly people: does frailty make a difference? J Gerontol B Psych Sci Soc Sci. 2004;59(5):250–257. doi: 10.1093/geronb/59.5.P250.
    1. Metzelthin S, Daniëls R, Van Rossum E, De Witte L, van den Heuvel W, Kempen G. The psychometric properties of three self-report screening instruments for identifying frail older people in the community. BMC Publ Health. 2010;10(1):176–183. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-10-176.
    1. Peters LL, Boter H, Buskens E, Slaets JPJ. Measurement properties of the groningen frailty indicator in home-dwelling and institutionalized elderly people. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2012;13:546–551. doi: 10.1016/j.jamda.2012.04.007.
    1. Schuurmans H, Steverink N, Lindenberg S, Frieswijk N, Slaets JPJ. Old or frail: what tells us more? J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2004;59(9):962–965. doi: 10.1093/gerona/59.9.M962.
    1. De Jong Gierveld J, van Tilburg T. Manual of the Loneliness Scale. 1999. Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam: Department of Social Research Methodology; 1999. updated version 18.01.02.
    1. Spinhoven P, Ormel J, Sloekers P, Kempen G, Speckens A, Hemert AM. A validation study of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) in different groups of Dutch subjects. Psychol Med. 1997;27(2):363–370. doi: 10.1017/S0033291796004382.
    1. Van der Zee K, Sanderman R. RAND-36. Vol. 1. Groningen: Northern Centre for Health Care Research, University of Groningen, the Netherlands; 1993. p. 28.
    1. The EQG. EuroQol-a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy. 1990;16(3):199–208.
    1. De Jong GJ, Van Tilburg T. A shortened scale for overall, emotional and social loneliness. Tijdschr Gerontol Geriatr. 2008;39(1):4–15. doi: 10.1007/BF03078118.
    1. Moorer P, Suurmeijer TPBM, Foets M, Molenaar I. Psychometric properties of the RAND-36 among three chronic disease (multiple sclerosis, rheumatic diseases and COPD) in the Netherlands. Qual Life Res. 2001;10(7):637–645. doi: 10.1023/A:1013131617125.
    1. Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Stratford PW, Knol DL, Bouter LM, de Vet HC. The COSMIN study reached international consensus on taxonomy, terminology, and definitions of measurement properties for health-related patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63(7):737–745. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.02.006.
    1. Nunnally J. Psychometric methods. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill; 1978.
    1. George D, Mallery M. SPSS for Windows step by step: a simple guide and reference. Boston: Pearson Allyn & Bacon; 2003.
    1. Mokken RJ, Lewis C. A nonparametric approach to the analysis of dichotomous item responses. Appl Psychol Meas. 1982;6(4):417–430. doi: 10.1177/014662168200600404.
    1. Hemker BT, Sijtsma K, Molenaar IW. Selection of unidimensional scales from a multidimensional item bank in the polytomous mokken I RT model. Appl Psychol Meas. 1995;19(4):337–352. doi: 10.1177/014662169501900404.
    1. Mokken RJ. Nonparametric models for dichotomous responses. New York: Springer; 1997. pp. 351–367. (Handbook of modern item response theory).
    1. Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.) Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1988.
    1. Van Buuren S, Groothuis-Oudshoorn K. MICE: Multivariate Imputation by chained equations in R. J Stat Softw. 2011;45(3):1–67.
    1. Pialoux T, Goyard J, Lesourd B. Screening tools for frailty in primary health care: a systematic review. Geriatr Gerontol Int. 2012;12(2):189–197. doi: 10.1111/j.1447-0594.2011.00797.x.
    1. Markle‒Reid M, Browne G. Conceptualizations of frailty in relation to older adults. J Adv Nurs. 2003;44(1):58–68. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2648.2003.02767.x.
    1. Cigolle CT, Ofstedal MB, Tian Z, Blaum CS. Comparing models of frailty: the health and retirement study. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2009;57(5):830–839. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2009.02225.x.
    1. Walston J, Hadley EC, Ferrucci L, Guralnik JM, Newman AB, Studenski SA, Ershler WB, Harris T, Fried LP. Research agenda for frailty in older adults: toward a better understanding of physiology and etiology: summary from the American Geriatrics Society/National Institute on Aging Research Conference on Frailty in Older Adults. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2006;54(6):991–1001. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2006.00745.x.
    1. Hábert R, Bravo G, Korner-Bitensky N, Voyer L. Predictive validity of a postal questionnaire for screening community-dwelling elderly individuals at risk of functional decline. Age Ageing. 1996;25(2):159–167. doi: 10.1093/ageing/25.2.159.
    1. Wilson JF. Frailty–and its dangerous effects–might be preventable. Ann Intern Med. 2004;141(6):489–492. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-141-6-200409210-00035.
    1. Puts MTE. Frailty: Biological risk factors, negative consequences and quality of life. VU University Amsterdam: PhD dissertation; 2006.
    1. Kempen GIJM, Van Heuvelen MJG, Van den Brink RHS, Kooijman AC, Klein M, Houx PJ, Ormel J. Factors affecting Contrasting Results between Self-reported and Performance-based Levels of Physical Limitations. Age Ageing. 1996;25(6):458–464. doi: 10.1093/ageing/25.6.458.

Source: PubMed

Sponsors and Collaborators

Medical Conditions

Drug Interventions

3
Subscribe