Encyclopedia of Clinical Neuropsychology

2018 Edition
| Editors: Jeffrey S. Kreutzer, John DeLuca, Bruce Caplan

Late Life Function and Disability Index

  • Tamara BushnikEmail author
Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-57111-9_1815

Synonyms

LL-FDI

Description

The Late Life Function and Disability Index (LL-FDI) was designed in 1992 to assess and demonstrate change over time or after an intervention for older adults in two outcome domains: disability and function (Haley et al. 2002; Jette et al. 2002). The disability component contains 16 items in two dimensions: frequency of performance and limitation in performance of life tasks. Each dimension contains two disability domains; within frequency, there are personal and social role domains, and within limitation there are instrumental and management role domains (Jette et al. 2002). The function component contains 32 items in three dimensions: upper extremity, basic lower extremity, and advance lower extremity functions. The three dimensions did not subdivide into different domains. Raw scores are transformed based on a Rasch model to scaled scores ranging from 0 to 100 with higher scores corresponding to better levels of functioning.

Historical Background

The...

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

References and Readings

  1. Beauchamp, M. K., Schmidt, C. T., Pedersen, M. M., Bean, J. F., & Jette, A. M. (2014). Psychometric properties of the late-life function and disability instrument: A systematic review. Geriatrics, 14, 12, epub.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Dubuc, N., Haley, S. M., Ni, P., Kooyoomjian, J. T., & Jette, A. M. (2004). Function and disability in late life: Comparison of the late-life function and disability instrument to the short-Form-36 and the London handicap scale. Disability & Rehabilitation, 26(6), 362–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Haley, S. M., Jette, A. M., Coster, W. J., Kooyoomjian, J. T., Levenson, S., Heeren, T., & Ashba, J. (2002). Late life function and disability instrument: II. Development and evaluation of the function component. Journals of Gerontology Series A: Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences, 57(4), M217–M222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Jette, A. M., Haley, S. M., Coster, W. J., Kooyoomjian, J. T., Levenson, S., Heeren, T., et al. (2002). Late life function and disability instrument: I. Development and evaluation of the disability component. Journal of Gerontology, 57A, M209–M216.Google Scholar
  5. Nagi, S. Z. (1991). Disability concepts revisited: Implications for prevention. In A. M. Pope & A. R. Tarlov (Eds.), Disability in America: Toward a national agenda for prevention (pp. 309–327). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  6. Sayers, S. P., Jette, A. M., Haley, S. M., Heeren, T. C., Guralnik, J. M., & Fielding, R. A. (2004). Validation of the late-life function and disability instrument. Journal of American Geriatric Society, 52, 1554–1559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. World Health Organization. (2001). International classification of functioning, disability and health: ICF. Geneva: WHO.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Inter-Hospital Research and Knowledge TranslationRusk RehabilitationNew YorkUSA