Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37085651›Full record

Trial reportAging clinical and experimental research2023

Deepening the understanding of the structural validity of the Tilburg Frailty Indicator.

Mercè Balasch-Bernat, Trinidad Sentandreu-Mañó, José M Tomás, Maria A Cebrià I Iranzo, Maria A Tortosa-Chuliá, Anna Arnal-Gómez, Natalia Cezón-Serrano

Registry-linked trialAbstract readClinical Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Aging clinical and experimental research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03832608 (Relationship Between the Sarcopenia Diagnostic Cut-points and Functionality in Older Adults), which is not on this map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT03832608 completednot on this map

Relationship Between the Sarcopenia Diagnostic Cut-points and Functionality in Older Adults

TypeobservationalSponsorUniversity of ValenciaRan2019 to 2021Enrolled300ConditionsSarcopenia, DiagnosticArmsNo intervention
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Mercè Balasch-BernatDepartment of Physiotherapy, University of Valencia, C/Gascó Oliag, 5, 46010, Valencia, Spain.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0216-0628
Trinidad Sentandreu-MañóDepartment of Physiotherapy, University of Valencia, C/Gascó Oliag, 5, 46010, Valencia, Spain. trinidad.sentandreu@uv.es.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4405-0539
José M TomásAdvanced Research Methods Applied to Quality of Life Promotion (ARMAQoL), University of Valencia, 46010, Valencia, Spain.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3424-1668
Maria A Cebrià I IranzoDepartment of Physiotherapy, University of Valencia, C/Gascó Oliag, 5, 46010, Valencia, Spain.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8803-3963
Maria A Tortosa-ChuliáDepartment of Applied Economics, University of Valencia, 46022, Valencia, Spain.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8576-8454
Anna Arnal-GómezDepartment of Physiotherapy, University of Valencia, C/Gascó Oliag, 5, 46010, Valencia, Spain.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1025-2239
Natalia Cezón-SerranoDepartment of Physiotherapy, University of Valencia, C/Gascó Oliag, 5, 46010, Valencia, Spain.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9084-2089

Funding

Conselleria de Cultura, Educación y Ciencia, Generalitat Valenciana GV/2019/131Spanish National Plan for Scientific and Technical Research and Innovation PID2021-124418OB-I00
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPsychometric properties of the Tilburg Frailty Indicator (TFI) have shown low internal consistency for psychological and social domains, and evidence for its structure validity is controversial. Moreover, research on TFI is frequently limited to community dwellings.

aimsTo evaluate structural validity, reliability, and convergent and divergent validity of the Spanish version of the Tilburg Frailty Indicator (TFI) in both community-dwelling and institutionalized older people. MATERIALS AND

methodsA cross-sectional study was conducted on Spanish older adults (n = 457) recruited from both community settings (n = 322) and nursing homes (n = 135). Participants completed the TFI and other frailty instruments: Fried's Frailty Phenotype, Edmonton Frailty Scale, FRAIL Scale, and Kihon Checklist (KCL). Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA), and reliability and validity coefficients were estimated. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Some items from physical and social domains showed low factor loadings (< 0.40). The three-factor CFA model showed better fit indices after depurating these items. Reliability estimates were good (CRI ≥ 0.70) for physical and psychological domains in the institutionalized sample, while in the community dwellings, only physical domain reliability was adequate. Convergent and divergent validity of physical and psychological domains was good, except for some alternative psychological measures highly correlating with the TFI physical component (KCL-depressive mood and Edmonton mood). However, the social domain showed low correlations with some social indicators.

conclusionThe findings of this study clarify some of the controversial validation results of the TFI structure and provide evidence to improve its use in psychometric terms. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03832608.

Indexed as

FrailtyAgedCross-Sectional StudiesFrail ElderlyGeriatric AssessmentHumansPsychometricsReproducibility of ResultsSurveys and QuestionnairesFrailtyOlder adultsPsychometricsStructural validity

Identifiers

PMID37085651
PMCPMC10200782

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.