ArticleAnnals of geriatric medicine and research2025
Reliability and Validity of a Self-administered Online Assessment of Intrinsic Capacity: A Singapore Cohort Study.
Article in Annals of geriatric medicine and research, 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTo ascertain the construct validity and reliability of a self-administered web-based assessment of intrinsic capacity (IC). The study design was a cross-sectional analysis using data from a prospective cohort.
methodsWe included data from 6,434 respondents (mean age 65.33±5.81 years; 52.4% women) of the Singapore Life Panel population study who participated in the online surveys in March 2022 and May 2022. Incremental nested factor structures of IC were modelled with confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and their goodness-of-fit were assessed mainly with root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), comparative fit index (CFI), Tucker-Lewis index (TLI), and standardized root mean square residual (SRMR). With the most parsimonious model as our eventual factor structure, we further evaluated IC and its domains with reliability indices.
resultsCFA demonstrated construct validity for the second-order factor structure with acceptable overall model fit: χ2(147)=7,696.276, p<0.001; CLI=0.947; TLI=0.938; RMSEA=0.089; SRMR=0.051. Amongst the domains, vitality had highest factor loading (0.889), whereas locomotion and cognition (0.534 and 0.601, respectively) had lowest loadings with the second-order IC factor. All five IC domains and the general IC factor fulfilled reliability thresholds (construct validity [CR] or hierarchical omega ≥0.7; average variance extracted ≥0.5); psychological and locomotion domains have high CR (>0.9), whereas vitality and sensory domains have lower values of CR.
conclusionOur study provides proof-of-concept evidence regarding the construct validity and reliability of a self-administered web-based assessment of IC index that can potentially be scalable in other population settings.
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.