Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T14:38:18.752Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Focusing on positive outcomes in frailty research: development of a short well-being instrument for older adults (SWIO)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 May 2019

Daan Duppen Open the ORCID record for Daan Duppen [Opens in a new window] ,
Gina Rossi ,
Eva Dierckx ,
Lieve Hoeyberghs ,
Liesbeth De Donder  and
D-SCOPE Consortium
Daan Duppen*
Affiliation:
Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB), Brussels, Belgium
Gina Rossi
Affiliation:
Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB), Brussels, Belgium
Eva Dierckx
Affiliation:
Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB), Brussels, Belgium
Lieve Hoeyberghs
Affiliation:
Faculty of Education, Health and Social Work, University College of Ghent, Gent, Belgium
Liesbeth De Donder
Affiliation:
Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB), Brussels, Belgium
D-SCOPE Consortium
Affiliation:
Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB), Brussels, Belgium Faculty of Education, Health and Social Work, University College of Ghent, Gent, Belgium
*
Correspondence should be addressed to: Daan Duppen, Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB), Pleinlaan 2-1050 Brussels, Belgium. Email: Daan. [email protected].
Get access

Abstract

Objective:

Studies of frailty have tended to focus on adverse outcomes. This study aims to develop a short instrument that identifies a positive outcome, namely, the level of well-being in older adults at risk of frailty.

Method:

871 older adults (49.4% women; mean age 75.72 years; SD = 8.05) with a frailty risk profile participated in the first wave of the D-SCOPE study. The possible domains of well-being were identified using a bottom-up approach. Exploratory Structural Equation Modeling (ESEM) and multidimensional Item Response Theory (IRT) analysis of 17 items in 4 domains measuring well-being was performed on a calibration sample (n = 435) to develop the instrument. The instrument was subsequently corroborated by confirmatory factor analysis and convergent/divergent relations with relevant external measures in a validation sample (n = 436).

Results:

The ESEM three-factor solution, with the subdimensions of sense of mastery, meaning in life, and life satisfaction, displayed good fit to the data (RMSEA = 0.070). For each dimension, the three best discriminating items were retained for the instrument following IRT analysis. Internal consistency of these dimensions was good in the validation sample (sense of mastery α = 0.864, meaning in life α = 0.715, and life satisfaction α = 0.782). The confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) three-factor model also showed good fit to the data (RMSEA = 0.064). Small to large zero-order correlations with the external measures were as expected.

Conclusions:

Using a bottom-up approach, this study developed a short instrument to identify levels of well-being in vulnerable or frail older adults. The instrument can be applied in primary care and prevention programs.

Keywords

item response theorywell-beinghealth outcomesshort form
Type
Original Research Article
Information
International Psychogeriatrics , Volume 31 , Issue 6: Issue Theme: Frailty, Cognition, and Mental Health , June 2019 , pp. 767 - 777
Copyright
© International Psychogeriatric Association 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Andrew, M. K., Fisk, J. D. and Rockwood, K. (2012). Psychological well-being in relation to frailty: a frailty identity crisis? International Psychogeriatrics, 24, 1347–1353. doi: 10.1017/S1041610212000269CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Battersby, A. and Phillips, L. (2016). In the end it all makes sense: meaning in life at either end of the adult lifespan. International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 83, 184–204. doi: 10.1177/0091415016647731CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bergman, H. et al. (2007). Frailty: an emerging research and clinical paradigm—issues and controversies. Journal of Gerontology Series A—Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences, 62, 731–737.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brandstaetter, M., Baumann, U., Borasio, G. D. and Fegg, M. J. (2012). Systematic review of meaning in life assessment instruments. Psycho-Oncology, 21, 1034–1052. doi: 10.1002/pon.2113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cai, L., du Toit, S. and Thissen, D. (2011). IRTPRO: Flexible, Multidimensional, Multiple Categorical IRT Modeling. Chicago, IL: Scientific Software International Inc.Google Scholar
Chen, F., Curran, P. J., Bollen, K. A., Kirby, J. and Paxton, P. (2008). An empirical evaluation of the use of fixed cutoff points in RMSEA test statistic in structural equation. Sociological Methods & Research, 36, 462–494. doi: 10.1177/0049124108314720CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chen, F. F., Jing, Y., Hayes, A. and Lee, J. M. (2013). Two concepts or two approaches? A bifactor analysis of psychological and subjective well-being. Journal of Happiness Studies, 14, 1033–1068. doi: 10.1007/s10902-012-9367-xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chida, Y. and Steptoe, A. (2008). Positive psychological well-being and mortality: a quantitative review of prospective observational studies. Psychosomatic Medicine, 70, 741–756. doi: 10.1097/PSY.0b013e31818105baCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clegg, A., Barber, S., Young, J., Iliffe, S. and Forster, A. (2014). The Home-based Older People’s Exercise (HOPE) trial: a pilot randomised controlled trial of a home-based exercise intervention for older people with frailty. Age and Ageing, 43, 687–695. doi: 10.1093/ageing/afu033CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd edn). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Converse, J. M. and Presser, S. (1986). Survey Questions: Handcrafting the Standardized Questionnaire. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Roeck, E. et al. (2018). CFAI-Plus: adding cognitive frailty as a new domain to the comprehensive frailty assessment instrument. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 33, 941–947. doi: 10.1002/gps.4875CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
De Witte, N. et al. (2013). The comprehensive frailty assessment instrument: development, validity and reliability. Geriatric Nursing, 34, 274–281. doi: 10.1016/j.gerinurse.2013.03.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Witte, N. et al. (2018). The comprehensive frailty assessment instrument enables to detect multidimensional frailty in community dwelling older people. Healthy Aging Research, 7, 1–6. doi: 10.12715/har.2018.7.13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diener, E., Emmons, R., Larsen, R. and Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 71–75. doi: 10.1207/s15327752jpa4901_13CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Diener, E., Lucas, R. E. and Oishi, S. (2018). Advances and open questions in the science of subjective well-being. Collabra: Psychology, 4, 15. doi: 10.1525/collabra.115CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Diener, E. et al. (2010). New well-being measures: short scales to assess flourishing and positive and negative feelings. Social Indicators. Research, 97, 143–156. doi: 10.1007/s11205-009-9493-yCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duppen, D. et al. (2018). Ageing well in place: kwaliteitsvol thuis wonen met 24-uurszorggarantie. [Ageing well in place: high quality living at home with guaranteed 24-hour care]. Verpleegkunde, 33, 6–13.Google Scholar
Duppen, D. et al. (2019). Meaning in life for socially frail older adults. Journal of Community Health Nursing, 65–77. doi: 10.1080/07370016.2019.1582160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dury, S. et al. (2017). Identifying frailty risk profiles of home-dwelling older people: focus on sociodemographic and socioeconomic characteristics. Aging & Mental Health, 21, 1031–1039. doi: 10.1080/13607863.2016.1193120CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dury, S. et al. (2018). Detecting frail, older adults and identifying their strengths: results of a mixed-methods study. BMC Public Health, 18, 191. doi: 10.1186/s12889-018-5088-3CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fowler, F. J. (2014). Survey Research Methods (5th edn). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.Google Scholar
Gobbens, R. J., Luijkx, K. G., Wijnen-Sponselee, M. T. and Schols, J. M. (2010). Toward a conceptual definition of frail community dwelling older people. Nursing Outlook, 58, 76–86. doi: 10.1016/j.outlook.2009.09.005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hu, L. and Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6, 1–55. doi: 10.1080/10705519909540118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Junius-Walker, U. et al. (2018). The essence of frailty: a systematic review and qualitative synthesis on frailty concepts and definitions. European Journal of Internal Medicine, 56, 3–10. doi: 10.1016/j.ejim.2018.04.023CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kojima, G., Iliffe, S., Jivraj, S. and Walters, K. (2016). Association between frailty and quality of life among community-dwelling older people: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 70, 716–721. doi: 10.1136/jech-2015-206717CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lambotte, D. et al. (2018). Randomized controlled trial to evaluate a prevention program for frail community-dwelling older adults: a D-SCOPE protocol. BMC Geriatrics, 18, 194. doi: 10.1186/s12877-018-0875-3CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Landi, F. et al. (2017). The “Sarcopenia and Physical fRailty IN older people: multi-componenT Treatment strategies” (SPRINTT) randomized controlled trial: design and methods. Aging Clinical and Experimental Research, 29, 89–100. doi: 10.1007/s40520-016-0715-2CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lawton, M. P. et al. (2001). Valuation of life: a concept and a scale. Journal of Aging and Health, 13, 3–31. doi: 10.1177/089826430101300101CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lee, W.-J., Chen, L.-K., Peng, L.-N., Chiou, S.-T. and Chou, P. (2016). Personal mastery attenuates the adverse effect of frailty on declines in physical function of older people. Medicine (Baltimore), 95, 1–6. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000004661Google ScholarPubMed
Marsh, H. W., Morin, A. J. S., Parker, P. D. and Kaur, G. (2014). Exploratory structural equation modeling: an integration of the best features of exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 10, 85–110. doi: 10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-032813-153700CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McColl, M. A., Davies, D., Carlson, P., Johnston, J. and Minnes, P. (2001). The community integration measure: development and preliminary validation. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 82, 429–434. doi: 10.1053/apmr.2001.22195CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Metzelthin, S. F. et al. (2015). Reducing disability in community-dwelling frail older people: cost-effectiveness study alongside a cluster randomised controlled trial. Age and Ageing, 44, 390–396. doi: 10.1093/ageing/afu200CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pearlin, L. I., Nguyen, K. B., Schieman, S. and Milkie, M. A. (2007). The life-course origins of mastery among older people. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 48, 164–179. doi: 10.1177/002214650704800205CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rolstad, S., Adler, J. and Ryden, A. (2011). Response burden and questionnaire length: is shorter better? A review and meta-analysis. Value in Health, 14, 1101–1108. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2011.06.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ryff, C. D. (2014). Psychological well-being revisited: advances in the science and practice of eudaimonia. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, 83, 10–28. doi: 10.1159/000353263CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Samejima, F. (1997). Graded response model. In: van der Linden, W. J. and Hambleton, R. K. (Eds.). The Handbook of Modern Item Response Theory (pp. 85–100). New York: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steger, M. F., Frazier, P., Oishi, S. and Kaler, M. (2006). The meaning in life questionnaire: assessing the presence of and search for meaning in life. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 53, 80–93. doi: 10.1037/0022-0167.53.1.80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steptoe, A., Deaton, A. and Stone, A. (2015). Subjective wellbeing, health, and ageing. Lancet, 385, 640–648. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)61489-0CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tabachnick, B. G. and Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using Multivariate Statistics (6th edn). Boston: Pearson.Google Scholar
Tennant, R. et al. (2007). The Warwick-Edinburgh mental well-being scale (WEMWBS): development and UK validation. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 5, 63. doi: 10.1186/1477-7525-5-63CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
van der Heyden, K., Dezutter, J. and Beyers, W. (2015). Meaning in life and depressive symptoms: a person-oriented approach in residential and community-dwelling older adults. Aging & Mental Health, 19, 1063–1070. doi: 10.1080/13607863.2014.995589CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
van der Vorst, A., Zijlstra, G. A. R., De Witte, N., Vogel, R. G. M., Schols, J. M. G. A. and Kempen, G. I. J. M. (2017). Explaining discrepancies in self-reported quality of life in frail older people: a mixed-methods study. BMC Geriatrics, 17, 251. doi: 10.1186/s12877-017-0641-yCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vermeiren, S. et al. (2016). Frailty and the prediction of negative health outcomes: a meta-analysis. Journal of the American Medical Directors Association, 17, 1163.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.jamda.2016.09.010CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Walters, K. et al. (2017). Home-based health promotion for older people with mild frailty: the HomeHealth intervention development and feasibility RCT. Health Technology Assessment, 21, 1–128. doi: 10.3310/hta21730CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Supplementary material: File

Duppen et al. supplementary material

Duppen et al. supplementary material 1

Download Duppen et al. supplementary material(File)
File 229.2 KB
Supplementary material: File

Duppen et al. supplementary material

Duppen et al. supplementary material 2

Download Duppen et al. supplementary material(File)
File 15.7 KB