ArticleNursing open2021
Instrument development and validation of the comprehensive ability of older people assessment scale.
Article in Nursing open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Instrument development and validation of the comprehensive ability of older people assessment scale.Nursing open · 2021Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimThe study is aimed to develop and psychometrically test the Comprehensive Ability of Older People Assessment scale and classify the ability grades.
designA cross-sectional design was used for instrument development.
methodThe Comprehensive Ability of Older People Assessment scale was developed by a sample of 971 older people from 4 long-term care institutions in China. The data were collected between April 2018 and March 2020. One-way analysis of variance and multiple regression analysis was used to screen scale items, while focus group interviews were used to integrate the subjective and objective items. Confirmative factor analysis and expert judgment were applied to explore construct validity. Reliability was explored through internal consistency estimation using Cronbach's alpha and homogeneity evaluation using corrected item-total correlations. Cluster analysis and discriminant analysis were used to segment the comprehensive ability assessment scores and discriminant function was established to determine the boundary value of each segment, using correlation analysis to perform reverse verification.
resultsFactor analysis yielded 40 items with six dimensions, including "mentation and cognitive," "perception and communication," "emotional problems," "mental and behavioural problems," "daily life and social participation," and "skin and oral status." The Cronbach's α was 0.951, while the dimensions showed Cronbach's α values ranging from 0.760-0.946. The rationality and scientificity of this scale were proved by the correlation analysis of reverse validation.
conclusionThe 4-grade Comprehensive Ability of Older People Assessment scale is proved to be with good validity and reliability and should be considered for institutional assessors. IMPACT: Assessors can accurately evaluate older people's health status and nursing needs through this scale in long-term care institutions, communities and hospitals, so as to provide accurate and high-quality nursing services. It will become a scientific basis for the government to offer accurate pension subsidies, purchase pension services scientifically for older people and establish third-party objective evaluation and supervision.
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.