TMU
Owner
Tarbiat Modares University (TMU) is the owner of HEHP.
0.8
Cite Score
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
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.modares.ac.ir/article-4-82982-en.html
URL: http://hehp.modares.ac.ir/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:
Authors
Abstract (146 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.
Keywords: