ArticleThe Gerontologist2026
Assessing the feasibility of linking Section G and Section GG measures of function in skilled nursing facilities.
Article in The Gerontologist, 2026. 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
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesIn skilled nursing facilities (SNFs), Section GG replaced Section G as the instrument for measuring function in 2023. To inform how previously validated scales and scores derived from Section G items might be re-produced from Section GG items, we examined key measurement assumptions in both instruments. RESEARCH DESIGN AND
methodsWe identified 1,131,694 Minimum Data Set 3.0 assessments of unique persons with complete Sections GG and G between October 2018 and September 2023 across 2,200 SNFs in the Long-Term Care Data Cooperative. We examined: (i) assessment instructions, (ii) item-level Spearman's correlations, (iii) measures of fit and factor structure in confirmatory and exploratory factor analyses, and (iv) graded response item response theory parameters.
resultsSeveral Section GG items were conceptually similar and highly correlated (ρ ≥ 0.7). After removing redundant items, a combined scale of both instruments was not unidimensional in confirmatory factor analyses (Comparative Fit Index = 0.753, Tucker-Lewis Index = 0.724, root-mean-square error of approximation = 0.153) and items from each instrument generally loaded onto separate but correlated factors (inter-factor correlation 0.735) in exploratory factor analyses. In item response theory analyses, Section GG items better captured independence while Section G items better captured dependence. DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS: Sections GG and G measure related yet distinct constructs, emphasizing the need for caution when interpreting a sum of Section GG items as a reflection of underlying health in SNF patients. Scales and scores derived from Section G items cannot be presumed to be equivalent when derived from Section GG items, and further work is needed examining interchangeability.
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.