ArticleBMC geriatrics2020
"Establishing the criterion validity of the interRAI Check-Up Self-Report instrument".
Article in BMC geriatrics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A systematic review of measures of ability to meet basic needs in older persons.Age and ageing · 2023Pooled it
- A Scoping Review of Interventions Using an interRAI Information System to Guide Care Management and Assess Intervention Efficacy in Older Adults.Healthcare management forum · 2026Article
- Reliability and validity of the interRAI Check-Up Self-Reported (CUSR) Assessment.BMC geriatrics · 2025Article
- Application and implementation of brief geriatric assessment in primary care and community settings: a scoping review.BMC geriatrics · 2025Article
- Use of an electronic wellness instrument in the integrated health and social care of older adults: a group concept mapping study.BMC health services research · 2024Article
- Evaluation of a technology-enhanced, integrated community health and wellness program for seniors (HWePS): protocol of a non-randomized comparison trial.BMC public health · 2023Article
- The Community Rehabilitation Assessment: patient and clinician-reported outcomes in ambulatory rehabilitation.Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences · 2023Article
- Article
- Before the COVID-Vaccine-Vulnerable Elderly in Homecare.Nursing reports (Pavia, Italy) · 2022Article
- Mood Disturbances Across the Continuum of Care Based on Self-Report and Clinician Rated Measures in the interRAI Suite of Assessment Instruments.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2022Article
- Implementing the interRAI Check-Up Comprehensive Assessment: Facilitating Care Planning and Care Coordination during the Pandemic.International journal of integrated careArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLow and middle-income countries have growing older populations and could benefit from the use of multi-domain geriatric assessments in overcoming the challenge of providing quality health services to older persons. This paper reports on the outcomes of a study carried out in Cape Town, South Africa on the validity of the interRAI Check-Up Self-Report instrument, a multi-domain assessment instrument designed to screen older persons in primary health settings. This is the first criterion validity study of the instrument. The instrument is designed to identify specific health problems and needs, including psychosocial or cognition problems and issues related to functional decline. The interRAI Check-Up Self-Report is designed to be compatible with the clinician administered instruments in the interRAI suite of assessments, but the validity of the instrument against clinician ratings has not yet been established. We therefore sought to establish whether community health workers, rather than trained healthcare professionals could reliably administer the self-report instrument to older persons.
methodsWe evaluated the criterion validity of the self-report instrument through comparison to assessments completed by a clinician assessor. A total of 112 participants, aged 60 or older were recruited from 7 seniors clubs in Khayelitsha, Cape Town. Each participant was assessed by one of two previously untrained, non-healthcare personnel using the Check-Up Self-report version and again by a trained assessor using the clinician version of the interRAI Check-Up within 48 h. Our analyses focused on the degree of agreement between the self-reported and clinician-rated versions of the Check-Up based on the simple or weighted kappa values for the two types of ratings. Binary variables used simple kappas, and ordinal variables with three or more levels were examined using weighted kappas with Fleiss-Cohen weights.
resultsBased on Cohen's Kappa values, we were able to establish that high levels of agreement existed between clinical assessors and lay interviewers, indicating that the instrument can be validly administered by community health workers without formal healthcare training. 13% of items had kappa values ranging between 0.10 and 0.39; 51% of items had kappa values between 0.4 and 0.69; and 36% of items had values of between 0.70 and 1.00.
conclusionOur findings indicate that there is potential for the Check-Up Self-Report instrument to be implemented in under-resourced health systems such as South Africa's.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.