TMU
Owner
Tarbiat Modares University (TMU) is the owner of HEHP.
0.8
Cite Score 2025
Volume 13, Issue 4 (2025)
Health Educ Health Promot 2025, 13(4): 679-686 |
Back to browse issues page
History
Received: 2025/09/1 | Accepted: 2025/11/8 | Published: 2025/11/20
Received: 2025/09/1 | Accepted: 2025/11/8 | Published: 2025/11/20
How to cite this article
Yousefi Z, Kavousi A, Yarmohammadi S, Marashi T. Psychometric Properties of the Persian Version of the Gerontopole Frailty Screening Tool in the Elderly. Health Educ Health Promot 2025; 13 (4) :679-686
URL: http://hehp.daneshafarand.org/article-4-82982-en.html
URL: http://hehp.daneshafarand.org/article-4-82982-en.html
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Rights and permissions
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
1- Department of Health Promotion and Education, Faculty of Public Health and Safety, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
2- Department of Epidemiology, Faculty of Public Health and Safety, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
3- Trauma Research Center, Kashan University of Medical Sciences, Kashan, Iran
4- Department of Health Promotion and Education, Faculty of Health, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
2- Department of Epidemiology, Faculty of Public Health and Safety, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
3- Trauma Research Center, Kashan University of Medical Sciences, Kashan, Iran
4- Department of Health Promotion and Education, Faculty of Health, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
Abstract (522 Views)
Aims: This study aimed to translate and determine the psychometric properties of the Gerontopole Frailty Screening Tool in the elderly in Tehran.
Instrument & Methods: This cross-sectional study assessed the validity and reliability of the translated Gerontopole Frailty Screening Tool. Eleven experts evaluated the content validity of tool in the elderly after re-translation into Persian. With 214 elderly participants, we assessed convergent validity and concurrent validity. A receiver operating characteristic curve was used to determine sensitivity, specificity, and the cutoff point. Cohen’s Kappa was used to assess the external consistency of the tool, and Cronbach’s alpha was used to assess its internal consistency.
Findings: The participants included 44.9% women and 55.1% men. The overall kappa coefficient between the two evaluators was 0.826, and the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for the tool was estimated at 0.757. To determine convergent validity and concurrent validity, the correlations between the Gerontopole Frailty Screening Tool and the Stanford Questionnaire were 0.519, with Abbreviated Mental Test Score 0.247, with Mini Nutritional Assessment 0.214, and with Geriatric Depression Scale 0.258 (p<0.05). The known-groups validity was not significant based on age. Also, the sensitivity and specificity based on the receiver operating characteristic curve at cutoff point 3 were 75% and 65.8%, respectively. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was estimated to be 0.785.
Conclusion: The Persian version of the Gerontopole Frailty Screening Tool is a valid and reliable instrument to determine frailty in Iranian elderly at the level of primary care.
Instrument & Methods: This cross-sectional study assessed the validity and reliability of the translated Gerontopole Frailty Screening Tool. Eleven experts evaluated the content validity of tool in the elderly after re-translation into Persian. With 214 elderly participants, we assessed convergent validity and concurrent validity. A receiver operating characteristic curve was used to determine sensitivity, specificity, and the cutoff point. Cohen’s Kappa was used to assess the external consistency of the tool, and Cronbach’s alpha was used to assess its internal consistency.
Findings: The participants included 44.9% women and 55.1% men. The overall kappa coefficient between the two evaluators was 0.826, and the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for the tool was estimated at 0.757. To determine convergent validity and concurrent validity, the correlations between the Gerontopole Frailty Screening Tool and the Stanford Questionnaire were 0.519, with Abbreviated Mental Test Score 0.247, with Mini Nutritional Assessment 0.214, and with Geriatric Depression Scale 0.258 (p<0.05). The known-groups validity was not significant based on age. Also, the sensitivity and specificity based on the receiver operating characteristic curve at cutoff point 3 were 75% and 65.8%, respectively. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was estimated to be 0.785.
Conclusion: The Persian version of the Gerontopole Frailty Screening Tool is a valid and reliable instrument to determine frailty in Iranian elderly at the level of primary care.
| | Full-Text (HTML) (25 Views)
References
1. Mokhberi A, Nedae Fard A, Sahaf R. Barriers and facilitators of Iranian elderly in use of ATM machines: A qualitative research in the way of cultural probes. SALMAND Iran J Ageing. 2013;8(3):17-24. [Persian] [Link]
2. WHO. Ageing and health [Internet]. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2022 [cited 2024 October 4]. Available from: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/ageing-and-health. [Link]
3. WHO. World report on ageing and health. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2017. [Link]
4. Clegg A, Young J, Iliffe S, Rikkert MO, Rockwood K. Frailty in elderly people. Lancet. 2013;381(9868):752-62. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/S0140-6736(12)62167-9]
5. Dent E, Kowal P, Hoogendijk EO. Frailty measurement in research and clinical practice: A review. Eur J Intern Med. 2016;31:3-10. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.ejim.2016.03.007]
6. Fried LP, Tangen CM, Walston J, Newman AB, Hirsch C, Gottdiener J, et al. Frailty in older adults: Evidence for a phenotype. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2001;56(3):M146-57. [Link] [DOI:10.1093/gerona/56.3.M146]
7. Tran HPT, Leonard SD. Geriatric assessment for primary care providers. Prim Care. 2017;44(3):399-411. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.pop.2017.05.001]
8. Cherubini A, Demougeot L, Jentoft AC, Curgunlu A, Michel JP, Roberts H, et al. Relationship between the Gérontopôle Frailty Screening Tool and the frailty phenotype in primary care. Eur Geriatr Med. 2015;6(6):518-22. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.eurger.2015.09.003]
9. Hoover M, Rotermann M, Sanmartin C, Bernier J. Validation of an index to estimate the prevalence of frailty among community-dwelling seniors. Health Rep. 2013;24(9):10-7. [Link]
10. Ma L, Zhang L, Tang Z, Sun F, Diao L, Wang J, et al. Use of the frailty index in evaluating the prognosis of older people in Beijing: A cohort study with an 8-year follow-up. Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2016;64:172-7. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.archger.2015.11.002]
11. Doi T, Makizako H, Tsutsumimoto K, Nakakubo S, Kim MJ, Kurita S, et al. Transitional status and modifiable risk of frailty in Japanese older adults: A prospective cohort study. Geriatr Gerontol Int. 2018;18(11):1562-6. [Link] [DOI:10.1111/ggi.13525]
12. Vellas B, Balardy L, Gillette-Guyonnet S, Abellan Van Kan G, Ghisolfi-Marque A, Subra J, et al. Looking for frailty in community-dwelling older persons: The Gérontopôle Frailty Screening Tool (GFST). J Nutr Health Aging. 2013;17(7):629-31. [Link] [DOI:10.1007/s12603-013-0363-6]
13. Yaman H, Ünal Z. The validation of the PRISMA-7 questionnaire in community-dwelling elderly people living in Antalya, Turkey. Electron Physician. 2018;10(9):7266-72. [Link] [DOI:10.19082/7266]
14. Pialoux T, Goyard J, Lesourd B. Screening tools for frailty in primary health care: A systematic review. Geriatr Gerontol Int. 2012;12(2):189-97. [Link] [DOI:10.1111/j.1447-0594.2011.00797.x]
15. Hoogendijk EO, Van Der Horst HE, Deeg DJ, Frijters DH, Prins BA, Jansen AP, et al. The identification of frail older adults in primary care: Comparing the accuracy of five simple instruments. Age Ageing. 2013;42(2):262-5. [Link] [DOI:10.1093/ageing/afs163]
16. Gilardi F, Capanna A, Ferraro M, Scarcella P, Marazzi M, Palombi L, et al. Frailty screening and assessment tools: A review of characteristics and use in public health. ANNALI DI IGIENE. 2018;30(2):128-39. [Link]
17. Vandenbroucke JP, Elm Ev, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, Mulrow CD, Pocock SJ, et al. Strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE): Explanation and elaboration. Int J Surg. 2014;12(12):1500-24. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.ijsu.2014.07.014]
18. Tanjani PT, Azadbakht M, Garmaroudi G, Sahaf R, Fekrizadeh Z. Validity and reliability of health promoting lifestyle profile II in the Iranian elderly. Int J Prev Med. 2016;7:74. [Link] [DOI:10.4103/2008-7802.182731]
19. Tagharrobi Z, Sharifi K, Sooky Z. Psychometric evaluation of Stanford health assessment questionnaire 8-item disability index (HAQ 8-item DI) in elderly people. J Holist Nurs Midwifery. 2014;24(1):9-20. [Persian] [Link]
20. Bakhtiyari F, Foroughan M, Fakhrzadeh H, Nazari N, Najafi B, Alizadeh M, et al. Validation of the Persian version of Abbreviated Mental Test (AMT) in elderly residents of Kahrizak charity foundation. Iran J Diabetes Metab. 2014;13(6):487-94. [Persian] [Link]
21. Saeidlou SN, Merdol TK, Mikaili P, Bektaş Y. Assessment of the nutritional status and affecting factors of elderly people living at six nursing home in Urmin, Iran. Int J Acad Res. 2011;3(1). [Link]
22. Malakouti SK, Fatollahi P, Mirabzadeh A, Salavati M, Zandi T. Reliability, validity and factor structure of the GDS‐15 in Iranian elderly. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2006;21(6):588-93. [Link] [DOI:10.1002/gps.1533]
23. Beaton D, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, Ferraz MB. Recommendations for the cross-cultural adaptation of health status measures. New York: American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. 2002;12(2):1-9. [Link]
24. Nilsson J, Gardulf A, Lepp M. Process of translation and adaptation of the Nurse Professional Competence (NPC) Scale. J Nurs Educ Pract. 2016;6(1):100. [Link] [DOI:10.5430/jnep.v6n1p100]
25. Ebadi A, Zarshenas L, Rakhshan M, Zareiyan A, Sharifnia S, Mojahedi M. Principles of scale development in health science. Tehran: JAME-E-NEGAR; 2017. [Link]
26. Terwee CB, Bot SD, De Boer MR, Van Der Windt DA, Knol DL, Dekker J, et al. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60(1):34-42. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.03.012]
27. Ebadi A, Taghizadeh Z, Montazeri A, Shahvari Z, Tavousi M, Bagherzadeh R. Translation, development and psychometric properties of health related measures-Part 2: Construct validity, reliability and responsiveness. PAYESH. 2017;16(4):445-55. [Persian] [Link]
28. Hajizadeh E, Asghari M. Statistical methods and analysis with a view to research methods in biological and health sciences. Tehran: JAHAD DANESHGAHI Publications; 2011. [Persian] [Link]
29. Rubio DM, Berg-Weger M, Tebb SS, Lee ES, Rauch S. Objectifying content validity: Conducting a content validity study in social work research. Soc Work Res. 2003;27(2):94-104. [Link] [DOI:10.1093/swr/27.2.94]
30. Subra J, Gillette-Guyonnet S, Cesari M, Oustric S, Vellas B, Team P. The integration of frailty into clinical practice: Preliminary results from the Gerontopole. J Nutr Health Aging. 2012;16(8):714-20. [Link] [DOI:10.1007/s12603-012-0391-7]
31. Chen CY, Gan P, How CH. Approach to frailty in the elderly in primary care and the community. Singapore Med J. 2018;59(5):240-5. [Link] [DOI:10.11622/smedj.2018052]
32. Capitulo KL, Cornelio MA, Lenz ER. Translating the short version of the Perinatal Grief Scale: Process and challenges. Appl Nurs Res. 2001;14(3):165-70. [Link] [DOI:10.1053/apnr.2001.22377]
33. Ceylan S, Oytun MG, Baş AO, Koca M, Doğu BB, Halil MG, et al. Frailty in community-dwelling older adults: Reliability and validity of the Turkish version of the Gérontopôle frailty screening tool. Turk J Med Sci. 2022;52(6):2004-10. [Link] [DOI:10.55730/1300-0144.5549]
34. Esenkaya ME, Dokuzlar O, Soysal P, Smith L, Jackson SE, Isik AT. Validity of the Kihon Checklist for evaluating frailty status in Turkish older adults. Geriatr Gerontol Int. 2019;19(7):616-21. [Link] [DOI:10.1111/ggi.13678]
35. Rosas-Carrasco O, Cruz-Arenas E, Parra-Rodríguez L, García-González AI, Contreras-González LH, Szlejf C. Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the FRAIL scale to assess frailty in Mexican adults. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2016;17(12):1094-8. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.jamda.2016.07.008]
36. Peters LL, Boter H, Buskens E, Slaets JP. Measurement properties of the Groningen Frailty Indicator in home-dwelling and institutionalized elderly people. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2012;13(6):546-51. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.jamda.2012.04.007]
37. Aygör HE, Fadıloğlu Ç, Şahin S, Aykar FŞ, Akçiçek F. Validation of edmonton frail scale into elderly Turkish population. Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2018;76:133-7. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.archger.2018.02.003]