Physical Frailty Assessment in Older Women: Can Simplification Be Achieved Without Loss of Syndrome Measurement Validity?

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Different phenotypes have increasingly been used as tools for clinical characterization of frailty among older adults. Although there have been studies about the comparability and effectiveness of various simplifications and approximations of existing frailty phenotypes for risk prediction, there have been no studies in which investigators evaluated the stability of the clinical characterization achieved. In the present study, we used baseline (1992-1996) data from 786 community-dwelling women who were 70-79 years of age in the Women's Health and Aging Study I and II to compare physical frailty phenotypes (PFPs). Using the 5 criteria set forth by Fried, we created 15 PFPs that were positive for various combinations of 3 or 4 of those criteria and compared them with the PFP that included all 5 criteria in order to assess construct validity with regard to frailty syndrome characterization and predictive validity for adverse outcomes of aging. All PFPs exhibited high specificity and negative predictive values for identifying frailty syndrome. Three-item PFPs were insensitive but were the best performers for positive predictive value, with the highest positive predictive value of 0.86 seen in the PFP characterized by the combination of weakness, exhaustion, and weight loss. In comparison, the 5-criterion PFP achieved a sensitivity of 0.82 but a positive predictive value of only 0.53. With regard to predictive validity, it was not merely the number of criteria used to characterize the PFPs but rather the specific criteria combinations that predicted the risk of adverse outcomes. Our findings show that there clinically important contexts in which simplified PFPs cannot be used interchangeably.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1037-1044
Number of pages8
JournalAmerican Journal of Epidemiology
Volume183
Issue number11
DOIs
StatePublished - Jun 1 2016

Fingerprint

Phenotype
Independent Living
Women's Health
Weight Loss
Research Personnel

Keywords

  • aging
  • construct validity
  • diagnosis
  • latent class
  • measurement

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Epidemiology

Cite this

@article{5e2ec81e6e8e49a49e8528dcbc79ed92,
title = "Physical Frailty Assessment in Older Women: Can Simplification Be Achieved Without Loss of Syndrome Measurement Validity?",
abstract = "Different phenotypes have increasingly been used as tools for clinical characterization of frailty among older adults. Although there have been studies about the comparability and effectiveness of various simplifications and approximations of existing frailty phenotypes for risk prediction, there have been no studies in which investigators evaluated the stability of the clinical characterization achieved. In the present study, we used baseline (1992-1996) data from 786 community-dwelling women who were 70-79 years of age in the Women's Health and Aging Study I and II to compare physical frailty phenotypes (PFPs). Using the 5 criteria set forth by Fried, we created 15 PFPs that were positive for various combinations of 3 or 4 of those criteria and compared them with the PFP that included all 5 criteria in order to assess construct validity with regard to frailty syndrome characterization and predictive validity for adverse outcomes of aging. All PFPs exhibited high specificity and negative predictive values for identifying frailty syndrome. Three-item PFPs were insensitive but were the best performers for positive predictive value, with the highest positive predictive value of 0.86 seen in the PFP characterized by the combination of weakness, exhaustion, and weight loss. In comparison, the 5-criterion PFP achieved a sensitivity of 0.82 but a positive predictive value of only 0.53. With regard to predictive validity, it was not merely the number of criteria used to characterize the PFPs but rather the specific criteria combinations that predicted the risk of adverse outcomes. Our findings show that there clinically important contexts in which simplified PFPs cannot be used interchangeably.",
keywords = "aging, construct validity, diagnosis, latent class, measurement",
author = "Xue, {Qian Li} and Jing Tian and Fried, {Linda P.} and Kalyani, {Rita R.} and Ravi Varadhan and Walston, {Jeremy D.} and Karen Bandeen-Roche",
year = "2016",
month = "6",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1093/aje/kwv272",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "183",
pages = "1037--1044",
journal = "American Journal of Epidemiology",
issn = "0002-9262",
publisher = "Oxford University Press",
number = "11",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Physical Frailty Assessment in Older Women

T2 - Can Simplification Be Achieved Without Loss of Syndrome Measurement Validity?

AU - Xue, Qian Li

AU - Tian, Jing

AU - Fried, Linda P.

AU - Kalyani, Rita R.

AU - Varadhan, Ravi

AU - Walston, Jeremy D.

AU - Bandeen-Roche, Karen

PY - 2016/6/1

Y1 - 2016/6/1

N2 - Different phenotypes have increasingly been used as tools for clinical characterization of frailty among older adults. Although there have been studies about the comparability and effectiveness of various simplifications and approximations of existing frailty phenotypes for risk prediction, there have been no studies in which investigators evaluated the stability of the clinical characterization achieved. In the present study, we used baseline (1992-1996) data from 786 community-dwelling women who were 70-79 years of age in the Women's Health and Aging Study I and II to compare physical frailty phenotypes (PFPs). Using the 5 criteria set forth by Fried, we created 15 PFPs that were positive for various combinations of 3 or 4 of those criteria and compared them with the PFP that included all 5 criteria in order to assess construct validity with regard to frailty syndrome characterization and predictive validity for adverse outcomes of aging. All PFPs exhibited high specificity and negative predictive values for identifying frailty syndrome. Three-item PFPs were insensitive but were the best performers for positive predictive value, with the highest positive predictive value of 0.86 seen in the PFP characterized by the combination of weakness, exhaustion, and weight loss. In comparison, the 5-criterion PFP achieved a sensitivity of 0.82 but a positive predictive value of only 0.53. With regard to predictive validity, it was not merely the number of criteria used to characterize the PFPs but rather the specific criteria combinations that predicted the risk of adverse outcomes. Our findings show that there clinically important contexts in which simplified PFPs cannot be used interchangeably.

AB - Different phenotypes have increasingly been used as tools for clinical characterization of frailty among older adults. Although there have been studies about the comparability and effectiveness of various simplifications and approximations of existing frailty phenotypes for risk prediction, there have been no studies in which investigators evaluated the stability of the clinical characterization achieved. In the present study, we used baseline (1992-1996) data from 786 community-dwelling women who were 70-79 years of age in the Women's Health and Aging Study I and II to compare physical frailty phenotypes (PFPs). Using the 5 criteria set forth by Fried, we created 15 PFPs that were positive for various combinations of 3 or 4 of those criteria and compared them with the PFP that included all 5 criteria in order to assess construct validity with regard to frailty syndrome characterization and predictive validity for adverse outcomes of aging. All PFPs exhibited high specificity and negative predictive values for identifying frailty syndrome. Three-item PFPs were insensitive but were the best performers for positive predictive value, with the highest positive predictive value of 0.86 seen in the PFP characterized by the combination of weakness, exhaustion, and weight loss. In comparison, the 5-criterion PFP achieved a sensitivity of 0.82 but a positive predictive value of only 0.53. With regard to predictive validity, it was not merely the number of criteria used to characterize the PFPs but rather the specific criteria combinations that predicted the risk of adverse outcomes. Our findings show that there clinically important contexts in which simplified PFPs cannot be used interchangeably.

KW - aging

KW - construct validity

KW - diagnosis

KW - latent class

KW - measurement

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84973375608&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84973375608&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1093/aje/kwv272

DO - 10.1093/aje/kwv272

M3 - Article

C2 - 27188938

AN - SCOPUS:84973375608

VL - 183

SP - 1037

EP - 1044

JO - American Journal of Epidemiology

JF - American Journal of Epidemiology

SN - 0002-9262

IS - 11

ER -