Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Groningen Frailty Indicator in Chinese nursing home residents

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

Abstract

Background

Frail older people are more likely to develop negative health outcomes. Previous studies have indicated that the Groningen Frailty Indicator is a practical frailty screening instrument with good psychometric properties; however, it has never been implemented in Chinese nursing homes.

Aims

To cross-culturally adapt and validate the Groningen Frailty Indicator in Chinese nursing home residents.

Methods

The participants were 192 residents from nursing homes. Reliability was analyzed by internal consistency and test–retest methods. Convergent validity was assessed using Spearman rank correlations between the GFI domains and activities of daily living, the mini nutritional assessment, the Mini-mental state examination, the Social Support Rating Scale, the 20-item Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale and the Short Form 36 mental component summary. Criterion validity was investigated by performing a receiver operating characteristics curve analysis.

Results

The Chinese GFI achieved semantic, idiomatic, and experiential equivalence. It had a high response rate among nursing home elders. It also showed good internal consistency (ICC = 0.712) and excellent test–retest reliability. Regarding construct validity, it presented good known-group divergent validity based on age. The correlations between the GFI domains and their corresponding measures were consistent as hypothesized, demonstrating convergent validity of the GFI. Using the Fried frailty phenotypes as reference criteria, the Chinese GFI showed satisfactory diagnostic accuracy for frailty (AUC = 0.823) and prefrailty (AUC = 0.791). The optimal cutoff point was 4 for frailty and 3 for prefrailty.

Conclusions

The GFI was successfully adapted for Chinese nursing home residents and presented acceptable validity and reliability.

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

References

  1. World Health Organization (WHO) (2015) China country assessment report on ageing and health. Geneva: WHO. https://www.who.int/ageing/publications/china-country-assessment/en/.  Accessed 19 Mar 2019

  2. Clegg A, Young J, Iliffe S et al (2013) Frailty in elderly people. Lancet 381:752–762. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(12)62167-9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Fried LP, Tangen CM, Walston J et al (2001) Frailty in older adults: evidence for a phenotype. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 56:146–156

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Kojima G (2015) Prevalence of frailty in nursing homes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Am Med Dir Assoc 16:940–945. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamda.2015.06.025

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Collard RM, Boter H, Schoevers RA et al (2012) Prevalence of frailty in community-dwelling older persons: a systematic review. J Am Geriatr Soc 60:1487–1492. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-5415.2012.04054.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Vellas B, Cestac P, Moley JE et al (2012) Implementing frailty into clinical practice: we cannot wait. J Nutr Health Aging 16:599–600

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Gobbens RJ, Luijkx KG, Wijnen-Sponselee MT et al (2010) Toward a conceptual definition of frail community dwelling older people. Nurs Outlook 58:76–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.outlook.2009.09.005

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Hogan DB, MacKnight C, Bergman H et al (2003) Models, definitions, and criteria of frailty. Aging Clin Exp Res 15:1–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-811353-0.00003-8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Vries NMD, Staal JB, van Ravensberg CD et al (2011) Outcome instruments to measure frailty: a systematic review. Ageing Res Rev 10:104–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arr.2010.09.001

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Karunananthan S, Wolfson C, Bergman H et al (2009) A multidisciplinary systematic literature review on frailty: overview of the methodology used by the Canadian Initiative on Frailty and Aging. BMC Med Res Methodol 9:68. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-9-68

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Rothman MD, Leo-Summers L, Gill TM (2008) Prognostic significance of potential frailty criteria. J Am Geriatr Soc 56:2211–2216. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-5415.2008.02008.x

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Peters LL, Boter H, Buskens E et al (2012) Measurement properties of the Groningen Frailty Indicator in home-dwelling and institutionalized elderly people. J Am Med Dir Assoc 13:546–551. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamda.2012.04.007

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Olaroiu M, Ghinescu M, Naumov V et al (2014) The psychometric qualities of the Groningen Frailty Indicator in Romanian community-dwelling old citizens. Fam Pract 31:490–495. https://doi.org/10.1093/fampra/cmu022

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Andela RM, Dijkstra A, Slaets JP et al (2010) Prevalence of frailty on clinical wards: description and implications. Int J Nurs Pract 16:14–19. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1440-172X.2009.01807.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Steverink N, Slaets J, Schuurmans H et al (2001) Measuring frailty: developing and testing the GFI (Groningen Frailty Indicator). Gerontologist 41:236–237

    Google Scholar 

  16. Schuurmans H, Steverink N, Lindenberg S et al (2004) Old or frail: what tells us more? J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 59:962–965. https://doi.org/10.1093/gerona/59.9.M962

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Bielderman A, van der Schans CP, van Lieshout MR et al (2013) Multidimensional structure of the Groningen Frailty Indicator in community-dwelling older people. BMC Geriatr 13:86. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2318-13-86

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Metzelthin SF, Daniëls R, van Rossum E et al (2010) The psychometric properties of three self-report screening instruments for identifying frail older people in the community. BMC Public Health 10:176. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-10-176

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Daniels R, van Rossum E, Beurskens A et al (2012) The predictive validity of three self-report screening instruments for identifying frail older people in the community. BMC Public Health 12:69. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-12-69

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Aaldriks AA, Maartense E, le Cessie S et al (2011) Predictive value of geriatric assessment for patients older than 70 years, treated with chemotherapy. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 79:205–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.critrevonc.2010.05.009

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Buckinx F, Croisier JL, Reginster JY et al (2018) Prediction of the incidence of falls and deaths among elderly nursing home residents: the SENIOR study. J Am Med Dir Assoc 19:18–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamda.2017.06.014

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. 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. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-5415.1975.tb00927.x

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Cappelleri JC, Zou KH, Bushmakin AG et al (2014) Patient-reported outcomes: measurement, implementation, and interpretation. CRC Press, Boca Raton

    Google Scholar 

  24. Brislin RW (1970) Back-translation for cross-cultural research. J Cross Cult Psychol 1:185–216. https://doi.org/10.1177/135910457000100301

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Chen CY, Wu SC, Chen LJ et al (2010) The prevalence of subjective frailty and factors associated with frailty in Taiwan. Arch Gerontol Geriatr 50:S43–S47. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0167-4943(10)70012-1

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Qu NN, Li KJ (2004) [Study on the reliability and validity of international physical activity questionnaire (Chinese Vision, IPAQ)]. Chin J Epidemiol 25:265–268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csr.2003.12.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Hou DZ, Zhang Y, Wu JL (2012) Study on reliability and validity of Chinese version of Barthel Index. Clin Focus 27:219–221

    Google Scholar 

  28. He XY, Liu XQ (2010) Evaluation of reliability and validity of Mini-nutritional assessment and Chinese nutrition screen. Nurs J Chin People’s Liberation Army 27:894–896. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1008-9993.2010.12.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Zhou XX (2015) A preliminary study of the validity and reliability of the Chinese version of Mini-mental state examination in stroke patients. Fujian Univ Tradit Chin Med. https://doi.org/10.7666/d.Y2807907

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Liu JW, Li FY, Lian YL (2008) Investigation of reliability and validity of the social support scale. J Xinjiang Med Univ 31:1–3. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1009-5551.2008.01.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Han M, Jia CX (2012) Reliability and validity of Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale in different rural populations. Chin J Public Health 28:1265–1267. https://doi.org/10.11847/zgggws2012-28-10-01

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Li L, Wang HM, Shen Y (2002) Development and psychometric tests of a Chinese version of the SF-36 Health Survey Scales. Chin J Prev Med 36:109–113. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.cr.7290131

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Clegg A, Rogers L, Young J (2015) Diagnostic test accuracy of simple instruments for identifying frailty in community-dwelling older people: a systematic review. Age Ageing 44:148–152. https://doi.org/10.1093/ageing/afu157

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Kuder G, Richardson M (1937) The theory of the estimation of test reliability. Psychometrika 2:151–160. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02288391

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Tavakol M, Dennick R (2011) Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha. Int J Med Educ 2:53–55. https://doi.org/10.5116/ijme.4dfb.8dfd

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Bland JM, Altman DG (1986) Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1:307–310. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(86)90837-8

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Brundle C, Heaven A, Brown L et al (2019) Convergent validity of the electronic frailty index. Age Ageing 48:152–156. https://doi.org/10.1093/ageing/afy162

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Ruopp MD, Perkins NJ, Whitcomb BW et al (2008) Youden Index and optimal cut-point estimated from observations affected by a lower limit of detection. Biom J 50:419–430. https://doi.org/10.1002/bimj.200710415

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Zheng J, Cui Y (2018) Prevalence status and risk factors of mild cognitive impairment of the elderly with frailty in pension facilities. Pract Geriatr 32:996–998. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1003-9198.2018.10.027

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Hou XL, Gao J, Wu CX et al (2018) Prevalence and factors associated with frailty among institutional older adults. Chin J Nurs 1:88–93

    Google Scholar 

  41. Zhao YY, Ding YP, Li XW et al (2018) Frailty among institutionalized elderly people in Nanjing city: prevalence and risk factors. Chin J Public Health 34:550–553. https://doi.org/10.11847/zgggws1112389

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Sutorius FL, Hoogendijk EO, Prins BA et al (2016) Comparison of 10 single and stepped methods to identify frail older persons in primary care: diagnostic and prognostic accuracy. BMC Fam Pract 17:102. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12875-016-0487-y

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Decoster L, Van Puyvelde K, Mohile S et al (2015) Screening tools for multidimensional health problems warranting a geriatric assessment in older cancer patients: an update on SIOG recommendations. Ann Oncol 26:288–300. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdu210

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Hasan SS, Kow CS, Verma RK et al (2017) An evaluation of medication appropriateness and frailty among residents of aged care homes in Malaysia: a cross-sectional study. Medicine (Baltimore) 96:e7929. https://doi.org/10.1097/md.0000000000007929

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Dong X, Chang ES, Simon MA (2014) Physical function assessment in a community-dwelling population of US Chinese older adults. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 69:S31–S38. https://doi.org/10.1093/gerona/glu205

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. Dong L, Liu N, Tian X et al (2017) Reliability and validity of the Tilburg Frailty Indicator (TFI) among Chinese community-dwelling older people. Arch Gerontol Geriatr 73:21–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.archger.2017.07.001

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Matsushita E, Okada K, Ito Y et al (2017) Characteristics of physical prefrailty among Japanese healthy older adults. Geriatr Gerontol Int 17:1568–1574. https://doi.org/10.1111/ggi.12935

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was funded by Department of Science and Technology of Jilin Province (20190303170SF) and Education Department of Jilin Province (JJKH20190094KJ). The funders played no role in the design, methods, subject recruitment, data collection, analysis or preparation of the paper.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Wei Xiang and Yuanjuan Cheng Equal contributors.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Nursing, Jilin University, 965 Xinjiang street, Changchun, China

    Wei Xiang, Zhihui Li, Jiaqi Han & Kun Li

  2. Department of Nursing, The Second Hospital of Jilin University, 218 Ziqiang street, Changchun, China

    Yuanjuan Cheng

Authors
  1. Wei Xiang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yuanjuan Cheng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Zhihui Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jiaqi Han
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Kun Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kun Li.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

Statement of human and animal rights

All procedures in this study that involved human participants were performed in accordance with the ethical standards of the Institutional Review Board of Jilin University School of Nursing, Changchun, China, 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.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 13 KB)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Xiang, W., Cheng, Y., Li, Z. et al. Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Groningen Frailty Indicator in Chinese nursing home residents. Aging Clin Exp Res 32, 1035–1042 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40520-019-01178-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40520-019-01178-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation