Validity and Reliability of the Korean Version of the Basic Physical Capability Scale for Older Adults

Eun-Ok Song; Gwi-Ryung Son Hong

doi:10.7475/kjan.2020.32.1.21

Journal List > Korean J Adult Nurs > v.32(1) > 1142895

Go to TopGo to Top Go to BottomGo to Bottom

TOOLS

Song and Hong: Validity and Reliability of the Korean Version of the Basic Physical Capability Scale for Older Adults

Original Article

Korean Journal of Adult Nursing 2020; 32(1): 21-34.

Published online: 20 February 2020

DOI: https://doi.org/10.7475/kjan.2020.32.1.21

Validity and Reliability of the Korean Version of the Basic Physical Capability Scale for Older Adults

Eun-Ok Song¹

, Gwi-Ryung Son Hong²

¹Ph.D, Candidate, College of Nursing, Hanyang University, Seoul, Korea.

²Professor, College of Nursing, Hanyang University, Seoul, Korea.

Corresponding author: Hong, Gwi-Ryung Son. College of Nursing, Hanyang University, 222 Wangsimni-ro, Seongdong-gu, Seoul 04763, Korea. Tel: +82-2-2220-0701, Fax: +82-2-2295-2074, grson@hanyang.ac.kr

Received 11 November 2019 Revised 11 December 2019 Accepted 24 December 2019

Korean Society of Adult Nursing

(open-access):

This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/), which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Purpose

This study aimed to verify the validity and reliability of the Korean version of the Basic Physical Capability Scale (BPCS-K).

Methods

The BPCS was translated into Korean using forward and back translations. Data were collected from January 16 to May 10, 2019. The study participants comprised 285 older adults, with 147 recruited from an acute care setting, and 138, who had dementia, were from long-term care facilities. Data analysis included KR-20, intraclass correlation coefficient, independent t-test, Kruskal-Wallis H test, hierarchical multiple regression, and Rasch analysis (item difficulty, infit/outfit, separation index, reliability index, and differential item function analysis), and were conducted using SPSS/WIN 25.0 and R programs. The criterion-related validity was examined using the Barthel Index.

Results

The KR-20 reliability coefficient was .93 and the intraclass correlation coefficient for 2-week test-retest reliability was .97. The BPCS-K scores were significantly different compared to the known groups. Moreover, controlling for age, gender, and cognitive status, the Barthel Index score was significantly associated with the BPCS-K scores. Rasch analysis supported good construct validity.

Conclusion

The findings suggest that the 16-item BPCS-K is an appropriate instrument to measure basic physical capability in Korean older adults. The BPCS-K can establish individualized physical activity goals for the elderly in a variety of clinical settings and can also serve to measure changes of physical function in physical activity interventions for older adults.

Keywords: Aged, Physical functional performance, Cognitive dysfunction, Reliability and validity

Figures and Tables

Figure 1

Plot person-item map.

Table 1

General Characteristics of Participants (N=285)

SD=standard deviation; ^†Korean version mini-mental state examination score; ^‡Korean barthel index score; ^§Counting unit=days; ^∥Counting unit=month.

Table 2

Rasch Model Testing Fit Statistics (N=285)

Diff.=Difficulty; SD=standard deviation; ^†1 is the easiest item to do correctly and higher numbers indicate increasing difficulty.

Table 3

Factors Associated with Physical Activity (N=285)

CI=confidence interval; SE=standard error; ^†Korean version mini-mental state examination score.

Table 4

Differences in BPCS-K Score by Known-groups (N=285)

BPCS-K=Korean version of the Basic Physical Capability Scale; SD=standard deviation; ^†Korean version mini-mental state examination score.

Notes

^{CONFLICTS OF INTEREST} The authors declared no conflict of interest.

^AUTHORSHIP

Study conception and design acquisition - SE-O and HG-RS.
Data collection - SE-O.
Analysis and interpretation of the data - SE-O.
Drafting of the manuscript - SE-O and HG-RS.
Critical revision of the manuscript - SE-O and HG-RS.
Final approval; SE-O and HG-RS.

Appendix

Appendix 1

References

1. Cho KO, Nam SN. Relationship between physical activity and health-related life quality according to gender in Korean elderly people. Journal of the Korean Gerontological Society. 2013; 33(4):775–785.

2. Devereux-Fitzgerald A, Powell R, Dewhurst A, French DP. The acceptability of physical activity interventions to older adults: a systematic review and meta-synthesis. Social Science & Medicine. 2016; 158:14–23. DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2016.04.006.

3. World Health Organization. Global recommendations on physical activity for health [Internet]. Geneva: World Health Organization Copyright;2010. cited 2019 August 9. Available from: http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/44399/1/9789241599979_eng.pdf.

4. Sallis JF. New thinking on older adults' physical activity. American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 2003; 25(3 Suppl 2):110–111. DOI: 10.1016/S0749-3797(03)00186-7.

5. Resnick B, Galik E, Boltz M. Function focused care approaches: literature review of progress and future possibilities. Journal of the American Medical Directors Association. 2013; 14(5):313–318. DOI: 10.1016/j.jamda.2012.10.019.

6. Kistler CE, Zimmerman S, Ward KT, Reed D, Golin C, Lewis CL. Health of older adults in assisted living and implications for preventive care. The Gerontologist. 2017; 57(5):949–954. DOI: 10.1093/geront/gnw053.

7. Cooper R, Kuh D, Cooper C, Gale CR, Lawlor DA, Matthews F, et al. Objective measures of physical capability and subsequent health: a systematic review. Age and Ageing. 2011; 40(1):14–23. DOI: 10.1093/ageing/afq117.

8. Resnick B, Galik E, Boltz M. Basic physical capability scale: psychometric testing with cognitively impaired older adults. American journal of Alzheimer's disease and other dementias. 2014; 29(4):326–332.

9. Mahoney FI, Barthel DW. Functional evaluation: the Barthel index: a simple index of independence useful in scoring improvement in the rehabilitation of the chronically ill. Maryland State Medical Journal. 1965; 14:61–65.

10. Hocking C, Williams M, Broad J, Baskett J. Sensitivity of Shah, Vanclay and Cooper's modified Barthel index. Clinical Rehabilitation. 1999; 13(2):141–147. DOI: 10.1191/026921599668105029.

11. Song R, Suh YO, Um YR, June KJ, Roberts BL. Effects of low-intensity exercise on functional ability in hospitalized elderly. The Journal of Nurses Academic Society. 1997; 27(4):807–819. DOI: 10.4040/jnas.1997.27.4.807.

12. Stineman MG, Shea JA, Jette A, Tassoni CJ, Ottenbacher KJ, Fiedler R, et al. The functional independence measure: tests of scaling assumptions, structure, and reliability across 20 diverse impairment categories. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. 1996; 77(11):1101–1108. DOI: 10.1016/S0003-9993(96)90130-6.

13. Koyano W, Shibata H, Nakazato K, Haga H, Suyama Y. Measurement of competence: reliability and validity of the TMIG index of competence. Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics. 1991; 13(2):103–116. DOI: 10.1016/0167-4943(91)90053-S.

14. Lawton MP, Brody EM. Assessment of older people: self-maintaining and instrumental activities of daily living. The Gerontologist. 1969; 9(3):179–186. DOI: 10.1093/geront/9.3_Part_1.179.

15. Won CW, Yang KY, Rho YG, Kim SY, Lee EJ, Yoon JL, et al. The development of Korean Activities of Daily Living (K-ADL) and Korean instrumental activities of daily living (K-IADL) scale. Journal of the Korean Geriatrics Society. 2002; 6(2):107–120.

16. Liu W, Unick J, Galik E, Resnick B. Barthel index of activities of daily living: item response theory analysis of ratings for long-term care residents. Nursing Research. 2015; 64(2):88–99. DOI: 10.1097/NNR.0000000000000072.

17. Tinetti ME. Performance-oriented assessment of mobility problems in elderly patients. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society. 1986; 34(2):119–126. DOI: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.1986.tb05480.x.

18. Stanek JM, Smith J, Petrie J. Intra and inter rater reliability of the Selective Functional Movement Assessment (SFMA) in healthy participants. International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy. 2019; 14(1):107–116. DOI: 10.26603/ijspt20190107.

19. Resnick B, Boltz M, Galik E, Wells C. Physical capability scale: psychometric testing. Clinical Nursing Research. 2013; 22(1):7–29. DOI: 10.1177/1054773812447943.

20. Liu W, Galik E, Nahm ES, Boltz M, Resnick B. Optimizing eating performance for long-term care residents with dementia: testing the impact of function-focused care for cognitively impaired. Journal of the American Medical Directors Association. 2015; 16(12):1062–1068. DOI: 10.1016/j.jamda.2015.06.023.

21. Seidel HM, Stewart RW, Ball JW, Dains JE, Flynn JA, Solomon BS. Mosby's guide to physical examination. 7th ed. Saint Louis: Mosby Elsevier;2011. p. 650–656.

22. Folstein MF, Folstein SE, McHugh PR. “Mini-mental state”: a practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. Journal of Psychiatric Research. 1975; 12(3):189–198. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3956(75)90026-6.

23. DeVellis RF. Scale development: theory and applications. 3rd ed. California: SAGE Publications;2012.

24. Park JH. Standardization of Korean version of the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE-K) for use in the elderly. part II. diagnostic validity. Journal of Korean Neuropsychiatric Association. 1989; 28(3):508–513.

25. Terwee CB, Mokkink LB, Knol DL, Ostelo RW, Bouter LM, de Vet HC. Rating the methodological quality in systematic reviews of studies on measurement properties: a scoring system for the COSMIN checklist. Quality of Life Research. 2012; 21(4):651–657. DOI: 10.1007/s11136-011-9960-1.

26. Park J. Reliability of functional status measurements in elderly people. Journal of the Korean Neuropsychiatric Association. 1995; 34(2):475–483.

27. Gilmer JS, Tripp-Reimer T, Buckwalter KC, Andrews PH, Morris WW, Rios H, et al. Translation and validation issues for a multidimensional elderly self-assessment instrument. Western Journal of Nursing Research. 1995; 17(2):220–226. DOI: 10.1177/019394599501700209.

28. Park MS, Kang KJ, Jang SJ, Lee JY, Chang SJ. Evaluating test-retest reliability in patient-reported outcome measures for older people: a systematic review. International Journal of Nursing Studies. 2018; 79:58–69. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2017.11.003.

29. Linacre JM. Rasch model estimation: further topics. Journal of Applied Measurement. 2004; 5(1):95–110.

30. Seol H. Using the bootstrap method to evaluate the critical range of misfit for polytomous Rasch fit statistics. Psychological Reports. 2016; 118(3):937–956. DOI: 10.1177/0033294116649434.

31. Baumgartner TA. Measurement for evaluation in physical education and exercise science. 7th ed. Boston: McGraw-Hill;2003.

32. Mack MG, Ragan BG. Development of the mental, emotional, and bodily toughness inventory in collegiate athletes and nonathletes. Journal of Athletic Training. 2008; 43(2):125–132. DOI: 10.4085/1062-6050-43.2.125.

33. Wang MJ. The relations among ADL, self-efficacy, physical activity and cognitive function in Korean elders. Journal of Korean Academy of Community Health Nursing. 2010; 21(1):101–109. DOI: 10.12799/jkachn.2010.21.1.101.

34. Ha JY, Cho B, Song M, Lim J, Kim GH, Jung Y, et al. A first-year cohort study based on health behaviors of older adults in an urban city: gender and age differences. Korean Journal of Adult Nursing. 2017; 29(5):505–516. DOI: 10.7475/kjan.2017.29.5.505.

35. Park MJ. The cognition, balance, and quality of life in the elderly. Journal of Korean Biological Nursing Science. 2011; 13(2):185–192.

TOOLS

ORCID iDs

Eun-Ok Song
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8578-7062

Gwi-Ryung Son Hong
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7460-4972

Similar articles