Volume 19, Issue 4 (July - August 2020)
Payesh 2020, 19(4): 445-453 |
Back to browse issues page
Ethics code: IR.SHAHED.REC.1397.044
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Dargahi R, Heravi-Karimooi M, Rejeh N, sharif Nia H, Montazeri A. Translation and initial validation of the Persian version of Groningen Frailty Inventory. Payesh 2020; 19 (4) :445-453
URL: http://payeshjournal.ir/article-1-1436-en.html
URL: http://payeshjournal.ir/article-1-1436-en.html
1- Shahed University, College of Nursing & Midwifery, Tehran, Iran
2- Elderly Care Research Centre - Shahed University, College of Nursing & Midwifery, Tehran, Iran
3- School of Nursing & Midwifery Amol, Mazandaran University of Medical sciences, Sari, Iran
4- Health Metrics Research Centre, Iranian Institute for Health Sciences Research, ACECR, Tehran, Iran
2- Elderly Care Research Centre - Shahed University, College of Nursing & Midwifery, Tehran, Iran
3- School of Nursing & Midwifery Amol, Mazandaran University of Medical sciences, Sari, Iran
4- Health Metrics Research Centre, Iranian Institute for Health Sciences Research, ACECR, Tehran, Iran
Abstract: (10005 Views)
Objective (s): Assessing the disability of the elderly requires a specific instrument. The Groningen Frailty Inventory is one of the known instruments that used to measure the ability of the elderly. The present study aimed to translate and initially validate the Persian version of the GFI questionnaire.
Methods: The present study was a methodological study which was performed on 139 elderly people. The questionnaire was translated from English into Persian and face and content validity were determined qualitatively. The quantitative validation was performed using construct validity (known groups comparison and concurrent validity). The General Anxiety Inventory was used for concurrent validity. Reliability was assessed by estimating internal consistency and test-retest analyses.
Results: The results of the known groups analysis showed that the questionnaire well differentiated disability score in older men versus women as hypothesized. Older people with lower education also had lower score as compared to well-educated older participants. Concurrent validity indicated a significant correlation between the Persian version of the Groningen Frailty and the General Anxiety Inventory. The internal consistency (Kuder- Richardson) was 0.762. Test-retest reliability (ICC) of the questionnaire with a two-weeks interval was 0.61.
Conclusion: The findings indicated that the Persian version of Groningen Frailty Indicator is a valid instrument and now could be used for measuring in research and clinical practice. It is suggested that the future studies assess the structural validity of the GFI using factor analysis with a bigger sample size.
Methods: The present study was a methodological study which was performed on 139 elderly people. The questionnaire was translated from English into Persian and face and content validity were determined qualitatively. The quantitative validation was performed using construct validity (known groups comparison and concurrent validity). The General Anxiety Inventory was used for concurrent validity. Reliability was assessed by estimating internal consistency and test-retest analyses.
Results: The results of the known groups analysis showed that the questionnaire well differentiated disability score in older men versus women as hypothesized. Older people with lower education also had lower score as compared to well-educated older participants. Concurrent validity indicated a significant correlation between the Persian version of the Groningen Frailty and the General Anxiety Inventory. The internal consistency (Kuder- Richardson) was 0.762. Test-retest reliability (ICC) of the questionnaire with a two-weeks interval was 0.61.
Conclusion: The findings indicated that the Persian version of Groningen Frailty Indicator is a valid instrument and now could be used for measuring in research and clinical practice. It is suggested that the future studies assess the structural validity of the GFI using factor analysis with a bigger sample size.
type of study: Descriptive |
Received: 2020/07/14 | Accepted: 2020/08/1 | ePublished ahead of print: 2020/08/25 | Published: 2020/09/5
Received: 2020/07/14 | Accepted: 2020/08/1 | ePublished ahead of print: 2020/08/25 | Published: 2020/09/5
References
1. Sadegh Moghadam L, Foroughan M, Mohammadi Shahbolaghi F, Ahmadi F. The Perception of Aging in the Elderly. Salmand Iranian Journal of Ageing 2016; 10: 202-209 [Persian]
2. Shahbazi M, Mirkhani M, Hatamizadeh N, Rahgozar M. Assessment of Disability in the Elderly in Tehran. Salmand Iranian Journal of Ageing 2008; 3: 84-92 [Persian]
3. German M, Randel J, Ewing D. The aging and development report: poverty, independence and the world's older people: A Help Age International report. London, Earthscan publication ltd, 1999
4. Mirzaie M, Darabi S. Population Aging in Iran and Rising Health Care Costs. Salmand Iranian Journal of Ageing 2017; 12:156-169 [Persian] [DOI:10.21859/sija-1202156]
5. Gilhooly M, Hanlon P, Mowat H, Cullen B, Macdonald S, Whyte B. Successful aging in an area of deprivation: Part 1-A qualitative exploration of the role of life experiences in good health in old age. Public Health 2007; 121: 807-813 [DOI:10.1016/j.puhe.2007.03.005]
6. Hojjati H, Sharifnia SH, Hosinalipour S, Akhoundzadeh G, Asayesh H. The effect of Reminiscence on the amount of group self‐ esteem and life satisfaction of elderly. Bimonthly Journal of Urmia Nursing & Midwifery Faculty 2011; 9: 351‐ 356 [Persian]
7. Adib Haj Bagheri M, Akbari H. The severity of disability and its related factors in the elderly. Feyz Journal of Kashan University of Medical Sciences 2007; 3:13 [Persian]
8. Ng T, Niti M, Chiam PC, Kua EH. Prevalence and correlates of functional disability in multiethnic elderly Singaporeans. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 2006; 54:9-21 [DOI:10.1111/j.1532-5415.2005.00533.x]
9. Bandari R, Heravi- Karimooi M, Mohebi L, A Montazeri. Validation of the Persian version of the Geriatric Anxiety Inventory. Payesh 2016; 15:422-431 [Persian]
10. Gobbens RJ, van Assen MA, Luijkx KG, Wijnen-Sponselee MT, Schols JM. The Tilburg Frailty Indicator: psychometric properties. Journal of the American Medical Directors Association 2010; 11:344-55 [DOI:10.1016/j.jamda.2009.11.003]
11. Tocchi C, Dixon J, Naylor M, Jeon S, McCorkle R, Development of a frailty measure for older adults: the frailty index for elders. American Journal 2016; 22:223-40 [DOI:10.1891/1061-3749.22.2.223]
12. Zhang X, Yang Y, Zhang C, Luo R, Liu Y. Development of a frailty scale for elderly people in China. Chinese Nursing Research 2017; 4:64-70 [DOI:10.1016/j.cnre.2017.06.003]
13. Taqarobi Z, Sharifi Kh, Suki Z. Psychometrics, Disability Scale of the General Home Survey Questionnaire (GHS-DI) in the Elderly Resident. Gilan University of Medical Sciences 2011; 2: 16‐25 [Persian]
14. Peters LL, Boter H, Buskens E, Slaets JP. Measurement properties of the Groningen Frailty Indicator in home-dwelling and institutionalized elderly people. Journal of the American Medical Directors Association 2012; 13:546-51 [DOI:10.1016/j.jamda.2012.04.007]
15. Schuurmans H, Steverink N, Lindenberg S. Old or frail: What tells us more? The Journals of Gerontology. Series A, Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences 2004; 59:962-965 [DOI:10.1093/gerona/59.9.M962]
16. Steverink N, Slaets J, Schuurmans H, VanLis M. Measuring frailty: Developing and testing the GFI (Groningen Frailty Indicator). The journals of Gerontology 2001; 41:236-237
17. Patrick D, Edwards T, Topolski T. Adolescent quality of life, part II: initial validation of a new instrument. Journal of Adolescence 2002; 25:287-300 [DOI:10.1006/jado.2002.0471]
18. Mohamadinejad T, Azad A, Taghizadeh G, Mohamadian A. Persian version "Katz Independency Scale in ADL" test-retest reliability in Iranian person with acute CVA. Research in Rehabilitation Sciences 2013; 9:10-17
19. Cil Akinci A, Pinar R. Validity and Reliability of Turkish Caregiver Burden Scale among Family Caregivers of Hemodialysis Patients. Journal of Nursing 2014; 23:352-360 [DOI:10.1111/j.1365-2702.2012.04235.x]
20. Cho K, Lin J, Chu H. The Reliability and Validity of the Chinese Version of the Caregiver Burden Inventory. Nursing Research 2002; 51:324-331 [DOI:10.1097/00006199-200209000-00009]
21. Xiang W, Cheng Y, Li Z, Han J, Li K, et al. Cross-cultural Adaptation and Psychometric Properties of the Groningen Frailty Indicator (GFI) Among Chinese Community-Dwelling Older Adults. Aging Clinical and Experimental Research 2020; 32:1035-1042 [DOI:10.1007/s40520-019-01178-7]
22. Olaroiu M, Ghinescu M, Naumov V, Brinza I, Heuvel W. The psychometric qualities of the Groningen Frailty Indicator in Romanian community-dwelling old citizens. Family Practice 2014; 31:490-495 [DOI:10.1093/fampra/cmu022]
23. Metzelthin SF, Daniels R, van Rossum E, et al. The psychometric properties of three self-report screening instruments for identifying frail older people in the community. BMC Public Health 2010; 10:176e184 [DOI:10.1186/1471-2458-10-176]
24. Tian X, Qiao X, Dong L, Liu N, Si H, Jin Y, Liu X, Wang C. Cross-cultural adaptation and psychometric properties of the Groningen Frailty Indicator (GFI) among Chinese community-dwelling older adults. Geriatric Nursing 2020;41:236-241 [DOI:10.1016/j.gerinurse.2019.10.002]
| Rights and Permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |