ArticleBMC geriatrics2025
Evaluating the reliability and validity of the geriatric assessment of disability scale in older adults undergoing hemodialysis.
Article in BMC geriatrics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNearly 50% of patients undergoing maintenance hemodialysis are aged ≥ 60 years, highlighting a growing population with unique health challenges. This study aimed to evaluate the reliability and validity of a functional impairment screening tool for older adults undergoing maintenance hemodialysis.
methodsConvenience sampling was used to investigate 283 older adults (160 men and 123 women) undergoing maintenance hemodialysis across four hemodialysis centers. The reliability and validity of the Functional Impairment Screening Tool were evaluated using psychometric indices: Cronbach's α to assess internal consistency, split-half reliability to determine scale consistency, factorial analysis to inspect construct validity, and correlation with the Barthel Index as a comparator measure for criterion validity.
resultsThe screening tool comprised three dimensions and 16 items. Exploratory factor analysis revealed two common factors with eigenvalues > 1, explaining 80.49% of the cumulative variance. The factor-loading range across all items varied from 0.702-0.860. The tool demonstrated 100% acceptance and qualification rates. The Cronbach's α coefficient was 0.940, indicating excellent internal consistency. When analyzed by dimension, Cronbach's α coefficients were 0.940 for personal life, 0.928 for family life, and 0.948 for social activity function. Split-half reliability, as measured by the Spearman-Brown coefficient, was 0.940 for the overall scale, with corresponding coefficients of 0.943, 0.891, and 0.947 for personal life, family life, and social activity functions, respectively. Additionally, the Guttman split-half coefficient was 0.920 for the overall scale, ranging from 0.929-0.877 across dimensions. Finally, the Spearman rank correlation coefficient between the total score of the functional impairment screening scale and the Barthel Index, as a measure of convergent validity, was r = 0.886 (P < 0.001), indicating a strong positive relationship.
conclusionsThese findings showcase that the Functional Impairment Screening Tool scale demonstrated strong reliability and validity, implying its suitability for evaluating daily functioning in older adults undergoing maintenance hemodialysis.
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.