Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The psychometric properties of the Physical Resilience Instrument for Older Adults (PRIFOR): a Rasch analysis

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Aging Clinical and Experimental Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Prior psychometric evidence of the Physical Resilience Instrument for Older Adults (PRIFOR) showed good criterion-related validity, concurrent validity, known-group validity, predictive validity, and internal consistency. However, it is unclear whether older patients with different treatment diagnoses interpret the PRIFOR similarly.

Aims

This study aimed to test the psychometric properties of the PRIFOR scores among different treatment diagnoses of older patients.

Methods

We recruited 413 hospitalized older patients with a medical diagnosis and 207 with a surgical diagnosis in a 1343-bed tertiary-care medical center in Taiwan. Data analyses included Rasch models, Principal Components Analysis (PCA), and Pearson correlations.

Results

The Rasch analyses showed that all PRIFOR items were embedded within their belonged constructs, reflecting good construct validity and unidimensionality. Person and item separation reliability support the internal consistency of the studied samples and PRIFOR items. However, six PRIFOR items were found to have meaningful differential item functioning (DIF) problems among treatment diagnoses.

Conclusions

The PRIFOR is a solid measurement and can be used for monitoring the status of older adults’ physical resilience. However, because six items were found to have meaningful DIF among treatment diagnosis groups, future studies should consider designing specific items for different patient populations to assess their needs in physical resilience.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, upon reasonable request.

References

  1. United Nations: World population prospects. https://www.un.org/development/desa/pd/sites/www.un.org.development.desa.pd/files/wpp2022_summary_of_results.pdf. Accessed 30 Mar 2023

  2. World Health Organization: World report on ageing and health https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/186463. Accessed 30 Mar 2023

  3. Hadley EC, Kuchel GA, Newman AB et al (2017) Report: NIA workshop on measures of physiologic resiliencies in human aging. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 72:980–990

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Whitson HE, Duan-Porter W, Schmader KE et al (2016) Physical resilience in older adults: systematic review and development of an emerging construct. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 71:489–495

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Chhetri JK, Ma L, Chan P (2022) Physical resilience: a novel approach for healthy aging. J Frailty Sarcopenia Falls 7:29–31

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Hu FW, Lin CH, Yueh FR et al (2022) Development and psychometric evaluation of the physical resilience instrument for older adults (PRIFOR). BMC Geriatr 22:229

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Hu FW, Lin CH, Lai PH et al (2021) Predictive validity of the physical resilience instrument for older adults (PRIFOR). J Nutr Health Aging 25:1042–1045

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Lin CY, Ou SH, Chang CM et al (2023) The physical resilience instrument for older adults (PRIFOR) in surgical inpatients: further evidence for its factor structure and validity. J Frailty Aging 12:91–96

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Tractenberg RE (2010) Classical and modern measurement theories, patient reports, and clinical outcomes. Contemp Clin Trials 31:1–3

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Jabrayilov R, Emons WHM, Sijtsma K (2016) Comparison of classical test theory and item response theory in individual change assessment. Appl Psychol Meas 40:559–572

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Pfeiffer E (1975) A short portable mental status questionnaire for the assessment of organic brain deficit in elderly patients. J Am Geriatr Soc 23:433–441

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Linacre JM (2002) Optimizing rating scale category effectiveness. J Appl Meas 3:85–106

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Linacre JM (2022) A user’s guide to WINSTEPSVR MINISTEP Rasch-model computer programs program manual 5.3.1. Winsteps.com., Chicago (IL)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Hagell P (2014) Testing rating scale unidimensionality using the principal component analysis (PCA)/t-test protocol with the Rasch model: the primacy of theory over statistics. Open J Stat 4:456–465

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Jones RN (2019) Differential item functioning and its relevance to epidemiology. Curr Epidemiol Rep 6:174–183

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Martinková P, Drabinová A, Liaw YL et al (2017) Checking equity: Why differential item functioning analysis should be a routine part of developing conceptual assessments. CBE Life Sci Educ 16:rm2

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Boone WJ, Staver JR, Yale MS (2013) Rasch analysis in the human sciences. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  18. Sibbern T, Sellevold VB, Steindal SA et al (2017) Patients’ experiences of enhanced recovery after surgery: a systematic review of qualitative studies. J Clin Nurs 26:1172–1188

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Yueh FR, Pan JH, Lee HF et al (2023) A qualitative study to explore experience and management strategies for recovery from frailty in older patients. J Nurs Res 31:e283

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Teng WC (2019) Unbearable burden: the caretakers’ self-perceived burden and counseling interventions. J Long Term Care 23:75–90

    Google Scholar 

  21. Low KCP, Ang SL (2013) Filial piety and CSR. In: Idowu SO, Capaldi N, Zu L et al (eds) Encyclopedia of corporate social responsibility. Springer, Berlin, pp 1135–1141

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  22. Chen YL (2013) Understanding the Meanings of Children’s Practice of Filial Piety from Outsourcing Parental Care Work: The Examples of Families Hiring Foreign Caregivers. Dissertation, National Chengchi University

  23. Resnick B, Boltz M, Galik E et al (2023) Psychometrics of the physical resilience scale in older adults living with dementia: proxy responses. J Aging Health 35:325–334

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This work was supported by a Grant from the Taiwan Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST 108-2314-B-006-040).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Occupational Therapy, AdventHealth University, Orlando, FL, USA

    Chia-Wei Fan

  2. Department of Nursing, National Tainan Junior College of Nursing, Tainan, Taiwan

    Yueh-Ping Li

  3. Department of Geriatrics and Gerontology, College of Medicine, National Cheng Kung University Hospital, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan, Taiwan

    Chia-Ming Chang

  4. School of Nursing, College of Nursing, Kaohsiung Medical University, No.100, Shih-Chuan 1st Road, Kaohsiung, 80708, Taiwan

    Fang-Wen Hu

  5. Institute of Allied Health Sciences, College of Medicine, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan, Taiwan

    Chung-Ying Lin

Authors
  1. Chia-Wei Fan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yueh-Ping Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Chia-Ming Chang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Fang-Wen Hu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Chung-Ying Lin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

C-WF and F-WH conceptualized the study. C-WF, Y-PL, C-YL, and F-WH were responsible for analysis and interpretation of results. C-WF, C-MC, and F-WH contributed substantially to the writing of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Fang-Wen Hu.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

None reported.

Human and animal rights

Approval was obtained from the Institutional Review Board of the participating hospital (IRB No. B-ER-108-064). The procedures performed in this study were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research ethics committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Fan, CW., Li, YP., Chang, CM. et al. The psychometric properties of the Physical Resilience Instrument for Older Adults (PRIFOR): a Rasch analysis. Aging Clin Exp Res 35, 2721–2728 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40520-023-02547-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40520-023-02547-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation