摘要
目的:从可行性、信度、效度和反应度四个方面对老年失能评估量表(EDAS)进行质量评价。方法:纳入2011年8—9月在四川大学华西医院老年病科住院的老人以及参与成都市跳伞塔社区调查的老人,采用面对面访谈方式进行调查。采用SPSS 20.0统计软件分析调查结果,考察量表的可行性、信度(重测信度、内部一致性效度和分半信度)、效度(内容效度和效标关联效度)和反应度。结果:先后3次评估中量表的接受率均为100%,量表的完成率分别为98.8%、100%和100%。完成量表的平均时间为(14.75±2.37)min。量表总分及其所包含的各个领域和维度的重测相关系数均大于0.7;克朗巴赫系数均大于0.8;除"器官功能"维度外,其余各维度和领域以及整个量表的Spearman-Brown系数和Guttman分半系数均>0.7。量表具有良好的内容效度;量表与Barthel指数和工具性日常生活活动(IADL)量表的Pearson相关系数分别为0.812和0.855。此外,量表能够较好的区分治疗措施对于老年人功能的影响。结论:老年失能评估量表具有较高的信度和效度,良好的可行性和反应度,为老年失能研究提供了质量可靠的评估工具。
Objective： To evaluate the feasibility, validity, reliability and responsiveness of the elderly disability assessment scale（EDAS）. Method： An investigation was conducted in the Geriatric Department, West China Hospital, Sichuan University and Tiaosanta community in Chengdu, China, from August to September, 2011. The included older people were investigated by face-to-face interview. SPSS 20.0 was used to analyze the data. Result： Three evaluations were conducted for each participation. All of the acceptance rates were 100%, and the completion rates were 98.8%, 100% and 100%, respectively. The mean time to finish the scale was （14.75~ 2.37） minutes. The test-retest coefficients of the total score and each domain and dimension were all higher than 0.7; while the Cronbach＇s ct were all higher than 0.8. Spearman-Brown coefficients and Guttman split-half coefficients of the total score, each domain and dimension （except for the dimension named ＂Organ function＂） were all higher than 0.7. The content validity of the EDAS was fine because of the standard developing pro- cess and the agreement of the experts. The Pearson correlation coefficients between the EDAS with the Barthel index（BI） and the instrumental activity of daily living（IADL） scale were 0.812 and 0.855, respectively. The to- tal score and the score of each domain and dimension were significantly different between the first assessment （before treatment） and the second assessment （after treatment）. The EADS could distinguish the influence of treatments on elderly function.Conclusion： The feasibility, validity, reliability and responsiveness of EDAS were all good. EDAS might be a reliable assessment tool for the study of elderly disability.
出处
《中国康复医学杂志》
CAS
CSCD
北大核心
2014年第5期433-436,共4页
Chinese Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine
基金
卫生部公益性行业科研专项(201002011)
卫生部中央保健局科研课题(B2009A007)
关键词
量表
老年
失能
信度
效度
反应度
scale
elderly
disability
validity
reliability
responsiveness
