Aging Medicine (Dec 2021)

Review of frailty measurement of older people: Evaluation of the conceptualization, included domains, psychometric properties, and applicability

  • Emma Yun‐zhi Huang,
  • Simon Ching Lam

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1002/agm2.12177
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 4, no. 4
pp. 272 – 291

Abstract

Read online

Abstract The purposes of this review are to describe the existing research on frailty measurement of older people and to understand their characteristics, with a focus on conceptual definitions, psychometric properties, and diagnostic accuracies. We reviewed the published literature to explore if cross‐cultural studies of different types of frailty measurements have been conducted and to determine their applicability in the community setting. Narrative review with limited electronic database search and cross reference searching of included studies was performed. Studies published after year 2001 were searched for using MEDLINE and CINAHL Plus databases with keywords. A total of 5144 search results were obtained, but only 42 frailty measurements were identified in 68 studies. For the type, three different measurements were indicated, namely, self‐report instrument (n = 17), clinical observation assessment (n = 19), and mixed frailty assessment instrument (n = 6). Only 12 (29%) measurements examined reliability and validity. Nevertheless, over 35% did not perform any psychometric testing before applying. For diagnosis accuracies, 35 (83%) frailty measurements reported the cut‐off value(s) for determining level of the frailty. However, the sensitivity (56%‐89.5%) and specificity (52%‐91.3%) varied. The applicability was also diverse and some frailty instruments should be only used in some specific population and mode of administration. This review provides an overview of three major types of frailty measurements used in different settings with different purposes. For estimating the prevalence of frailty of older people in a community, the self‐report type may be appropriate. The psychometric properties of many reviewed instruments are reported insufficiently. The cut‐off value(s) are usually suggested with diverse sensitivity and specificity. Self‐report instruments, such as Groningen Frailty Indicator (GFI) and Tilburg Frailty Indicator (TFI), are the most extensively examined in terms of satisfactory psychometric properties. Thus, GFI and TFI, with the current evidence, are recommended to be used in the community setting for frailty screening tools.

Keywords