IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v18y2021i8p3872-d531618.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Psychometric Properties of the Proxy-Reported Life-Space Assessment in Institutionalized Settings (LSA-IS-Proxy) for Older Persons with and without Cognitive Impairment

Author

Listed:
  • Klaus Hauer

    (Agaplesion Bethanien Hospital Heidelberg/Geriatric Center at the Heidelberg University, and Center of Geriatric Medicine, Heidelberg University, 69126 Heidelberg, Germany)

  • Phoebe Ullrich

    (Agaplesion Bethanien Hospital Heidelberg/Geriatric Center at the Heidelberg University, and Center of Geriatric Medicine, Heidelberg University, 69126 Heidelberg, Germany)

  • Patrick Heldmann

    (Network Aging Research (NAR), Heidelberg University, 69115 Heidelberg, Germany)

  • Laura Bauknecht

    (Medical Faculty, Heidelberg University, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany)

  • Saskia Hummel

    (Medical Faculty, Heidelberg University, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany)

  • Bastian Abel

    (Agaplesion Bethanien Hospital Heidelberg/Geriatric Center at the Heidelberg University, and Center of Geriatric Medicine, Heidelberg University, 69126 Heidelberg, Germany)

  • Juergen M. Bauer

    (Agaplesion Bethanien Hospital Heidelberg/Geriatric Center at the Heidelberg University, and Center of Geriatric Medicine, Heidelberg University, 69126 Heidelberg, Germany)

  • Sarah E. Lamb

    (Institute of Health Research, University of Exeter, South Cloisters, St. Luke’s Campus, Exeter EX1 2LU, UK)

  • Christian Werner

    (Agaplesion Bethanien Hospital Heidelberg/Geriatric Center at the Heidelberg University, and Center of Geriatric Medicine, Heidelberg University, 69126 Heidelberg, Germany)

Abstract

(1) Background: Life-space mobility assessments for institutionalized settings are scarce and there is a lack of comprehensive validation and focus on persons with cognitive impairment (CI). This study aims to evaluate the psychometric properties of the Life-Space Assessment for Institutionalized Settings by proxy informants (LSA-IS-proxy) for institutionalized, older persons, with and without CI. (2) Methods: Concurrent validity against the self-reported version of the LSA-IS, construct validity with established construct variables, test-retest reliability, sensitivity to change during early multidisciplinary geriatric rehabilitation treatment, and feasibility (completion rate, floor/ceiling effects) of the LSA-IS-proxy, were assessed in 94 hospitalized geriatric patients (83.3 ± 6.1 years), with and without CI. (3) Results: The LSA-IS-proxy total score showed good-to-excellent agreement with the self-reported LSA-IS (Intraclass Correlations Coefficient, ICC 3,1 = 0.77), predominantly expected small-to-high correlations with construct variables ( r = 0.21–0.59), good test–retest reliability (ICC 3,1 = 0.74), significant sensitivity to change over the treatment period (18.5 ± 7.9 days; p < 0.001, standardized response mean = 0.44), and excellent completion rates (100%) with no floor/ceiling effects. These results were predominantly confirmed for the sub-scores of the LSA-IS-proxy and were comparable between the sub-groups with different cognitive status. (4) Conclusions: The LSA-IS-proxy has proven to be feasible, valid, reliable, and sensitive to change in hospitalized, geriatric patients with and without CI.

Suggested Citation

  • Klaus Hauer & Phoebe Ullrich & Patrick Heldmann & Laura Bauknecht & Saskia Hummel & Bastian Abel & Juergen M. Bauer & Sarah E. Lamb & Christian Werner, 2021. "Psychometric Properties of the Proxy-Reported Life-Space Assessment in Institutionalized Settings (LSA-IS-Proxy) for Older Persons with and without Cognitive Impairment," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(8), pages 1-17, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:8:p:3872-:d:531618
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/8/3872/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/8/3872/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Satariano, W.A. & Guralnik, J.M. & Jackson, R.J. & Marottoli, R.A. & Phelan, E.A. & Prohaska, T.R., 2012. "Mobility and aging: New directions for public health action," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 102(8), pages 1508-1515.
    2. Julia Seinsche & Wiebren Zijlstra & Eleftheria Giannouli, 2020. "Motility in Frail Older Adults: Operationalization of a New Framework and First Insights into Its Relationship with Physical Activity and Life-Space Mobility: An Exploratory Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(23), pages 1-20, November.
    3. Metz, D. H., 2000. "Mobility of older people and their quality of life," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 7(2), pages 149-152, April.
    4. Kateřina Macháčová & Hana Vaňková & Iva Holmerová & Inna Čábelková & Ladislav Volicer, 2018. "Ratings of activities of daily living in nursing home residents: comparison of self- and proxy ratings with actual performance and the impact of cognitive status," European Journal of Ageing, Springer, vol. 15(4), pages 349-358, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Spinney, Jamie E.L. & Newbold, K. Bruce & Scott, Darren M. & Vrkljan, Brenda & Grenier, Amanda, 2020. "The impact of driving status on out-of-home and social activity engagement among older Canadians," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 85(C).
    2. Rania Wasfi & Ahmed El-Geneidy & David Levinson, 2007. "The Transportation Needs of Seniors," Working Papers 000028, University of Minnesota: Nexus Research Group.
    3. Vanessa Zorrilla-Muñoz & María Silveria Agulló-Tomás & Carmen Rodríguez-Blázquez & Alba Ayala & Gloria Fernandez-Mayoralas & Maria João Forjaz, 2022. "Ageing Perception as a Key Predictor of Self-Rated Health by Rural Older People—A Study with Gender and Inclusive Perspectives," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-13, February.
    4. Ranković Plazinić, Biljana & Jović, Jadranka, 2018. "Mobility and transport potential of elderly in differently accessible rural areas," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 169-180.
    5. Yang, Yongjiang & Sasaki, Kuniaki & Cheng, Long & Tao, Sui, 2022. "Does the built environment matter for active travel among older adults: Insights from Chiba City, Japan," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 101(C).
    6. Knierim, Lukas & Schlüter, Jan Christian, 2021. "The attitude of potentially less mobile people towards demand responsive transport in a rural area in central Germany," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    7. Biranchi Adhikari & Ajay Kumar Behera & Rabindra Narayan Mahapatra & Harish Chandra Das, 2022. "Retracted: An empirical model for Indian senior citizens in traffic management," Growth and Change, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 53(1), pages 35-56, March.
    8. Ziqi Zhang & Zhi Qiu, 2020. "Exploring Daily Activity Patterns on the Typical Day of Older Adults for Supporting Aging-in-Place in China’s Rural Environment," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(22), pages 1-20, November.
    9. Wong, R.C.P. & Szeto, W.Y. & Yang, Linchuan & Li, Y.C. & Wong, S.C., 2018. "Public transport policy measures for improving elderly mobility," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 73-79.
    10. Olawole, Moses Olaniran & Aloba, Oluwole, 2014. "Mobility characteristics of the elderly and their associated level of satisfaction with transport services in Osogbo, Southwestern Nigeria," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 105-116.
    11. Wong, R.C.P. & Yang, Linchuan & Szeto, W.Y. & Li, Y.C. & Wong, S.C., 2020. "The effects of accessible taxi service and taxi fare subsidy scheme on the elderly's willingness-to-travel," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 129-136.
    12. Banister, David & Bowling, Ann, 2004. "Quality of life for the elderly: the transport dimension," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 11(2), pages 105-115, April.
    13. Rosenkvist, Jenny & Risser, Ralf & Iwarsson, Susanne & Wendel, Kerstin & Ståhl, Agneta, 2009. "The Challenge of Using Public Transport: Descriptions by People with Cognitive Functional Limitations," The Journal of Transport and Land Use, Center for Transportation Studies, University of Minnesota, vol. 2(1), pages 65-80.
    14. Daniel Palac & Tiffany Bullard & Jason D. Cohen & Lydia T. Nguyen & Raksha A. Mudar & Sean P. Mullen, 2019. "Effects of Traditional vs. iPad-Enhanced Aerobic Exercise on Wayfinding Efficacy and Cognition: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(18), pages 1-16, September.
    15. Piotr Skórka & Beata Grzywacz & Dawid Moroń & Magdalena Lenda, 2020. "The macroecology of the COVID-19 pandemic in the Anthropocene," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(7), pages 1-17, July.
    16. Su, Fengming & Schmöcker, Jan-Dirk & Bell, Michael G.H., 2009. "Mode Choice of Older People Before and After Shopping: A Study with London Data," The Journal of Transport and Land Use, Center for Transportation Studies, University of Minnesota, vol. 2(1), pages 29-46.
    17. Fatima Ghani & Jerome N Rachele & Venurs HY Loh & Simon Washington & Gavin Turrell, 2019. "Do Differences in Social Environments Explain Gender Differences in Recreational Walking across Neighbourhoods?," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(11), pages 1-18, June.
    18. Martens, Karel, 2018. "Ageing, impairments and travel: Priority setting for an inclusive transport system," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 122-130.
    19. Yen Tran & Naohisa Hashimoto & Takafumi Ando & Toshihisa Sato & Naoki Konishi & Yuji Takeda & Motoyuki Akamatsu, 2024. "The indirect effect of travel mode use on subjective well-being through out-of-home activities," Transportation, Springer, vol. 51(6), pages 2359-2391, December.
    20. Claudia Burlando & Enrico Ivaldi & Andrea Ciacci, 2021. "Seniors’ Mobility and Perceptions in Different Urban Neighbourhoods: A Non-Aggregative Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-23, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:8:p:3872-:d:531618. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.