Scholarlink

Purpose <p>Recent studies highlight how technology can mitigate the reliance on trained staff for scalability of the Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB). Although the original multi-sensor-based electronic SPPB (eSPPB) kiosk was previously validated in the outpatient setting, technical limitations and lack of user-friendliness impeded scalability to community settings where SPPB assessments are most often performed. We aim to evaluate the revised eSPPB kiosk in terms of construct validity, agreement, inter-rater, and test–retest reliability vis-à-vis manual SPPB (mSPPB) in community-dwelling older adults.</p> Methods <p>Fifty-eight community-dwelling older adults (81% women, mean age = 75.0 ± 5.5, median FRAIL = 0 [range 0–2]) from active ageing centers performed the mSPPB and eSPPB concurrently. Twenty (34%) had a repeat assessment 2&#xa0;weeks later for test–retest reliability. Convergent validity, discriminant ability, agreement, inter-rater, and test–retest reliability were evaluated using partial correlation adjusted for age and gender, independent sample t tests using SPPB cutoff ≤ 9, and cross-tabulation of mSPPB against eSPPB, Bland–Altman plots, and intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC), respectively.</p> Results <p>eSPPB demonstrated excellent correlation with mSPPB (<i>r</i> = 0.922, <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001); weak-moderate correlation with frailty and sarcopenia; and good discriminant ability for sarcopenia and frailty using SPPB cutoff ≤ 9. Bland–Altman plots showed good agreement between eSPPB and mSPPB (mean difference = 0.12, 95%CI – 1.10 to 1.34; <i>r</i> = –0.035, <i>p</i> = 0.505). Inter-rater reliability was excellent (ICC = 0.92, 95%CI 0.87–0.95), while test–retest reliability was comparable between mSPPB and eSPPB (ICC = 0.66, 95%CI 0.33–0.85 versus 0.61, 95%CI 0.25–0.82 respectively).</p> Conclusion <p>Our study corroborates the construct validity, agreement, inter-rater, and test–retest reliability between the eSPPB kiosk and mSPPB in healthy community-dwelling older adults. This paves the way for scalability studies examining real-world eSPPB screening of sarcopenia and frailty in the community setting.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Validation of the revised multi-sensor-based electronic Short Physical Performance Battery (eSPPB) kiosk in community-dwelling older adults

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2025年2月19日

查看全文
  • Daphne Zihui Yang,
  • Edbert Edric Rodrigues,
  • Herb Howard C. Hernandez,
  • Eng Hui Ong,
  • Louise Heyzer,
  • Cai Ning Tan,
  • Joanne Kua,
  • Noor Hafizah Ismail,
  • Wee Shiong Lim

摘要

Purpose

Recent studies highlight how technology can mitigate the reliance on trained staff for scalability of the Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB). Although the original multi-sensor-based electronic SPPB (eSPPB) kiosk was previously validated in the outpatient setting, technical limitations and lack of user-friendliness impeded scalability to community settings where SPPB assessments are most often performed. We aim to evaluate the revised eSPPB kiosk in terms of construct validity, agreement, inter-rater, and test–retest reliability vis-à-vis manual SPPB (mSPPB) in community-dwelling older adults.

Methods

Fifty-eight community-dwelling older adults (81% women, mean age = 75.0 ± 5.5, median FRAIL = 0 [range 0–2]) from active ageing centers performed the mSPPB and eSPPB concurrently. Twenty (34%) had a repeat assessment 2 weeks later for test–retest reliability. Convergent validity, discriminant ability, agreement, inter-rater, and test–retest reliability were evaluated using partial correlation adjusted for age and gender, independent sample t tests using SPPB cutoff ≤ 9, and cross-tabulation of mSPPB against eSPPB, Bland–Altman plots, and intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC), respectively.

Results

eSPPB demonstrated excellent correlation with mSPPB (r = 0.922, p < 0.001); weak-moderate correlation with frailty and sarcopenia; and good discriminant ability for sarcopenia and frailty using SPPB cutoff ≤ 9. Bland–Altman plots showed good agreement between eSPPB and mSPPB (mean difference = 0.12, 95%CI – 1.10 to 1.34; r = –0.035, p = 0.505). Inter-rater reliability was excellent (ICC = 0.92, 95%CI 0.87–0.95), while test–retest reliability was comparable between mSPPB and eSPPB (ICC = 0.66, 95%CI 0.33–0.85 versus 0.61, 95%CI 0.25–0.82 respectively).

Conclusion

Our study corroborates the construct validity, agreement, inter-rater, and test–retest reliability between the eSPPB kiosk and mSPPB in healthy community-dwelling older adults. This paves the way for scalability studies examining real-world eSPPB screening of sarcopenia and frailty in the community setting.