Skip to main content
Download PDF

Reliability, validity and minimal detectable change of the Chinese Version of the Assessment of Physical Activity in Frail Older People (APAFOP-C)

BMC Geriatrics volume 24, Article number: 582 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Physical activity (PA) is essential in mitigating frailty syndrome, and it is necessary to measure PA in older adults with frailty. Assessment of Physical Activity in Frail Older People (APAFOP) is a suitable patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) for assessing PA among older adults with frailty. This study aimed to determine the reliability, validity and minimal detectable change of the Chinese version of the APAFOP (APAFOP-C).

Methods

This cross-sectional validation study was designed to measure the reliability and criterion validity of the APAFOP-C with 124 frail community-residing older adults. APAFOP-C was completed twice within an interval of 7–17 days to determine test-retest reliability. The investigator triangulation method was used to investigate inter-rater reliability, and a pedometer was used as the reference measurement to assess the criterion validity. Reliability and criterion validity were assessed using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC2,1), Pearson correlation coefficient for normally distributed variables, Spearman correlation coefficient, Wilcoxon signed-rank test for skewed variables, and the minimal detectable change at 95% level of confidence (MDC95). Agreement assessment was conducted using Bland-Altman plots for inter-rater reliability and criterion validity. Kendall’s W test assessed absolute agreement among three raters in inter-rater reliability. The Mann-Whitney U test was used to evaluate whether any particular day was more representative of certain daily activities.

Results

Total PA on any arbitrarily chosen day illustrates daily activity (Z= -0.84, p = 0.40). The APAFOP-C exhibited strong-to-very strong test-retest reliability (ICC2,1=0.73–0.97; Spearman ρ = 0.67–0.89), and the total PA score demonstrated MDC95 < 10%. Inter-rater reliability was also strong-to-very strong (ICC2,1=0.96–0.98; Spearman ρ = 0.88–1.00), and moderate criterion validity when compared with total PA score on pedometer readings (Spearman ρ = 0.61). Limits of agreement among different raters regarding the APAFOP-C and the pedometer were narrow.

Conclusion

The APAFOP-C was found to have limited but acceptable psychometric properties for measuring PA among community-dwelling older adults with frailty in China. It was a feasible comparative PROM for assessing PA worldwide. Practitioners can develop individualized exercise programs for frail older adults and efficiently track changes in PA utilizing the APAFOP-C.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

Once a person reaches around 70 years old, a new phenotype of a transitional and multidimensional condition distinct from any single chronic disease emerges and develops as a normal part of the aging process, which leads to a progressive decline in physiological functional status, known as frailty [1]. Low-intensity physical activity (PA) and four other clinical syndromes form the frailty phenotype: unintentional weight loss, self-reported exhaustion, weak grip strength, and slow walking speed [2].

Research has confirmed that PA preserves and improves the function of many physiological systems that are operating abnormally in older adults with frailty, such as sarcopenia [3], protein synthesis [4], inflammation [5, 6], and anemia [7]. There is also increasing evidence that older adults with frailty who maintain a physically active lifestyle benefit from improved physical characteristics such as physical endurance, physical performance, and functional status [8,9,10]. However, given that “lack of time and interest,” “health status,” and “fear” are the most commonly reported obstacles to PA in the oldest old adults [11], studies have also found that even low-dose PA resulted in significant linear reductions in frailty [12] and all-cause mortality [13].

Methods for assessing PA include objective methods (e.g., accelerometry, pedometer, and doubly labeled water) and subjective methods (e.g., PA questionnaires and activity logs) [14]. Objective measurements allow for detailed accounts of PA intensity and frequency but are highly time-consuming and burdensome the assessor when performing large-scale epidemiological studies [15]. In contrast, subjective measures are an excellent method for identifying the dimensions of PA, which includes frequency, type, intensity, and time and, in some instances, estimating the amount of metabolic equivalents (MET) and energy expenditure level [16]. Moreover, self-reported data quantification enables a practical and low-cost option to capture data at the population level [17].

Some studies have used several subjective measurements to measure populations of older adults. Since these measures were not specifically designed for older adults with frailty, they cannot effectively capture intermittent, sporadic, unstructured PA with short stochastic bursts, or non-exercise activity thermogenesis. It is worth noting that these unique characteristics of PA are its dominant components in older adults with frailty [18], and failure to capture them would lead to under- or over-estimation of PA among older adults with frailty [19, 20], which would result in unreliable measurement results [21, 22]. The Assessment of Physical Activity in Frail Older People (APAFOP) has been demonstrated to be a feasible and pragmatic patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) with high utility in research and for capturing PA performed by older adults with frailty and institutionalized older adults [23, 24]. Furthermore, to promote widespread international use and cater to cultural differences and specific populations, our research team used a systematic cross-cultural adaptation process established by Beaton and colleagues in 1994 and a rigorous cognitive interviewing method to translate and cross-culturally adapt the APAFOP to the Chinese context [25, 26]. The translation and cross-cultural adaptation processes of the Chinese version of the APAFOP (APAFOP-C) were conducted and reported in a previous study [27].

The purpose of the present study was to determine the reliability, validity and minimal detectable change of the APAFOP-C among community-residing frail older adults in China. Specifically, it aimed to determine the criterion validity of the APAFOP-C compared with a pedometer as a standardized tool to assess physical activity and to evaluate the reproducibility (inter-rater and test-retest reliability) of the APAFOP-C.

Method

Study design

This validation study utilized a cross-sectional survey to evaluate the reliability and criterion validity of the APAFOP-C.

Setting and sample

A convenience sampling method was used to recruit older adults with frailty who live in the northeastern part of China by placing flyers on public advertisement boards and by word-of-mouth. Those aged 60 and older, residing in the community, and scoring two or more on the Chinese FRAIL scale [28] were eligible for inclusion. We selected this criterion according to the Chinese FRAIL scale [28], indicating robustness at 0 points, pre-frailty at 1 point, and frailty at 2 points or higher. The study excluded older adults who were institutionalized or hospitalized, as well as those who were incapable of communicating or responding during the interview. A total of 124 frail older adults living in the community were included in the study based on the inclusion criteria, and they were instructed on how to use pedometers to assess their daily activities. Among 124 participants, we randomly selected 42 older adults to assess test-retest reliability (Fig. 1). In this study, the sample size for intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was calculated with a correlation coefficient of 0.7 as an effect size [23], power 0.8, and target width 0.3 of the 95% confidence interval of ICCs (ICC2,1). The required same size was a minimum of 40 for 3 raters with systematic deviation based on the recommendation by Mokkink et al. [29].

Fig. 1
figure 1

Flow of the study process

Full size image

Data collection

Data collection was performed from January 12 to July 3, 2022, using an interviewer-administered questionnaire and objective tools. Each participant was invited to a face-to-face interview on day 0 (D0), and a research assistant fully explained the purpose of the study. Participants were asked to complete a sociodemographic questionnaire and undergo anthropometric measurements after providing informed consent. To ensure participant engagement, each individual was provided with a pedometer and a gift valued between 5 and 10 Chinese Yuan.

Sociodemographic data such as age, sex, marital status, education level, retirement status, and perceived health were collected. Anthropometric data, including height and weight, were collected from each participant to calculate body mass index (BMI). In this study, participants were classified by BMI level: underweight (< 18.5 kg/m2), normal weight (18.5–24.9 kg/m2), overweight (25.0–29.9 kg/m2), and obese (> 30 kg/m2).

Inter-rater reliability was assessed using an investigator triangulation method [30]. Three raters were invited, including one who was involved in the manual’s development as a reference (reference-rater 1). The second rater (rater 2) did not receive any training but read the user manual and familiarized himself with the questionnaire in advance. A third rater (rater 3) was given formal training on how to administer the questionnaire and avoid systematic errors during the data collection process. Reference-rater 1 recorded interviews and sent the recordings to the other two raters for independent scoring in order to minimize the potential for bias in inter-rater reliability. Based on the data independently scored by each rater, we evaluated whether training or a user manual could reduce systematic errors when applying the APAFOP-C.

Objective assessment of PA

A pedometer (Yamax SW-200, Yamax, Tokyo, Japan) was used to measure the PA of the participants. The device contains a motion sensor that captures and records motion and responds to vertical acceleration of the human body, enabling the direct comparison of patient reports on the APAFOP-C for both individual domains and the total score. Several studies have previously demonstrated its validity, reliability, and accuracy, as well as its superior performance under both free-living [31, 32] and controlled laboratory conditions [33, 34]. In addition, the Yamax pedometer is commonly used in applied research in older populations [31, 35, 36].

Each participant was provided with a pedometer along with verbal and written instructions on how to operate it. Each participant wore a pedometer on the waistband of their thigh, and any movement above a threshold was recorded as a completed step. A pedometer was also given to participants to reset to zero when they awoke the following morning (D1) after the baseline measurement, and participants were instructed to wear it throughout the day except while sleeping or bathing, and to continue their regular physical activity routines during the investigation. Steps taken during the day until going to bed were recorded by participants. The research assistant met with participants again on the second experimental day (D2) to collect the pedometer data and asked the participants to recall their PA from the previous day by administering the APAFOP-C. Finally, 7–14 days after D1 [37, 38], 42 randomly selected participants completed the APAFOP-C again to determine test-retest reliability.

Subjective assessment of PA

The APAFOP was initially developed to assess PA frequency and duration among older and frail populations in six domains: walking, outdoor activity, indoor activity, sitting, lying down, and sports activity. PA intensity was rated on the APAFOP according to a MET-based scoring system, and the developers adjusted the MET value according to the PA characteristics of this population. The adjusted MET value ranged from 1 to 4 depending on the PA sub-domain, including low-intensity daily activities or recreation-level to high-intensity sports. The score for each domain was calculated by multiplying the MET levels of activities and duration of the respective activity over a day, and the total PA score was calculated by summing the contribution of six domains. Higher scores indicated higher PA levels.

The APAFOP was translated into Chinese and cross-culturally adapted following strict and systematic guidelines [25, 26, 39]. In the APAFOP-C, the intensity and scoring method remained the same to ensure international comparability. However, the questionnaire layout was adjusted to increase the convenience for interviewers, and some PA items were changed or expanded to adapt it to the Chinese context. A previous study demonstrated that the APAFOP-C obtained good content validity and was considered comprehensive and relevant in assessing the PA of older adults with chronic conditions, various levels of limited physical and cognitive function, and sedentary behavior in China [27] (see related files).

Data analysis

All data were entered into Excel, and statistical analyses were performed using SPSS software (version 26.0, SPSS, Chicago, IL, USA). Self-reported PA data were scored according to the APAFOP-C user manual. Variables in this study were reported as numbers and percentages or as mean ± SD, while medians and inter-quartile ranges (IQRs) were used for the variables with skewed distributions. The Mann-Whitney U test was used to evaluate whether an arbitrarily chosen day was representative of certain daily activities. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was performed to assess normality. Moreover, results in this study were not stratified by sex since the difference in baseline was not detected in both pedometer readings and all PA-related variables based on the Mann-Whitney U tests.

Reproducibility of the APAFOP-C was assessed by test-retest reliability and agreement among three raters. Test-retest reliability was assessed by comparing scores of the APAFOP-C performed on D1 and at intervals of 7–14 days [38] using reliability coefficient (ICC2,1). In addition, a standard error of measurement (SEM) and minimal detectable change at the 95% confidence level (MDC95) for absolute reliability were provided following the equation: \(SEM=SD\times \surd (1-ICC)\) and \(MDC=SEM\times \sqrt{2}\times 1.96\). Inter-rater reliability among three raters with the rater 1 as a reference-rater was evaluated using Kendall’s W test and ICC2,1. Bland-Altman plots were created for inter-rater reliability based on the mean values between each pair of raters (reference-rater1 - rater2; reference-rater1 - rater3; rater2 - rater3).

The criterion validity of APAFOP-C was determined by comparing PA scores (total, intensity-based, and each subdomain) with total steps measured by pedometers. We categorized intensity-based PA into inactive (summated scores for sitting and lying down) and active (summated scores for walking, outdoor activities, indoor activities, and sports). A previous study demonstrated that the correlation between two measures provides information about the strength of the relationship but does not reflect the agreement. Additionally, moderate to high agreement between measures can justify selecting one over another [1, 40]. The Limit of Agreement (LoA) was assessed using Bland-Altman plots with Z-score normalized data for criterion validity. Pearson correlation coefficient was calculated for normally distributed data, while the Wilcoxon signed-rank test and Spearman correlation coefficient were used for non-normally distributed data. We interpreted Pearson correlation coefficients, interclass correlation coefficients, and Spearman correlation coefficients as follows: a correlation coefficient of less than 0.10 is negligible, 0.10–0.39 is weak, 0.40–0.69 is moderate, 0.70–0.89 is strong, and 0.90-1.0 is very strong [41]. The level of statistical significance was set at 0.05 [41].

Results

Sociodemographic characteristics of the participants

The study sample comprised 124 older adults with frailty, aged 77.05 ± 5.90 years, ranging from 63 to 88 years; 66 (53.2%) of the participants were male. Among these participants, 54.8% were married or living with a partner, 58.9% had received primary-school education, 61.3% were retired, and 75% self-reported a fair health status. Regarding body mass, 72.6% had a normal BMI. Notably, 17 participants (13.7%) reported that their PA on the investigation day was different from their typical daily patterns. Despite these variations, a Mann-Whitney U test revealed no statistically significant difference in the total PA scores measured on the APAFOP-C among those who performed PA differently (Z= -0.84, p = 0.40). The median time to complete the checklist (excluding the time to explain the items) per trial was 6.23 min (range 1.12–18.21 min). The total scores of APAFOP-C were 28.59 on average, ranged from 24.5 to 44.5, while their total steps of pedometer reading were 5173, with the range of 466 to 14,665. When categorizing the daily steps of the participants based on the normative data for special population (older adults with chronic health conditions) [42], 83.1% of the participants fell into the normative range, with 5.6% walking less and 11.3% walking more than normative range (Table 1).

Table 1 Sociodemographic and anthropometric characteristics N = 124
Full size table

Test-retest reliability

Test-retest reliability was evaluated with 42 randomly selected participants at an interval of 7–14 days. All ICCs were strong to very strong (0.73–0.97), with the strongest reliability for the score of sitting (ICC = 0.97, 95% CI = 0.94–0.98). Strong reliability was also observed for the total PA score (ICC = 0.75, 95% CI = 0.58–0.86; SEM = 0.59). The result of the MDC was smaller than 10% for the total score, which may reflect a satisfactory parameter when comparing the mean between test and retest. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test indicated no significant difference (p > 0.05) for the retest at an interval of 7–14 days. The results of the Spearman rank correlation between test and retest indicated a moderate to strong correlation (ρ = 0.67–0.89, significant at the 0.01 level [two-tailed]). None of the 42 participants reported sports-activity-related information for calculating the test-retest reliability (Table 2). Additional analysis confirmed that there were no statistically significant differences in anthropometric characteristics between the 42 randomly selected participants and the total 124 participants (p > 0.05).

Table 2 Test-retest reliability of the APAFOP-C at intervals of 7–14 days N = 42
Full size table
Table 3 Inter-rater reliability among three raters for APAFOP-C N = 124
Full size table

Inter-rater reliability

Overall, under the null hypothesis that the ratings of the three raters are not concordant in Kendall’s W test, the total and each sub-domain PA scores between the three raters demonstrate absolute agreement (W = 0.94-1.00, p < 0.01). The Spearman rank correlation results also indicated a strong to very strong correlation (ρ = 0.88–0.97, 95% CI = 0.79–0.99, p < 0.01), and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test indicated that there was no significant difference (p > 0.05) among the total PA scores of the raters (Table 3). To be specific, compared with reference-rater 1 (median = 28.59, IQR = 27.62–29.92), rater 2 (median = 28.60, IQR = 27.59–29.63) and rater 3 (median = 28.61, IQR = 27.67–30.01) slightly overestimated the APAFOP-C-derived total PA scores of the participants. In addition, Rater 3 also slightly overestimated scores for indoor activities and lying down compared with rater 2, but there was still a very strong correlation among the scores of the three raters (indoor activities: ρ = 0.93–0.96, 95% CI = 0.85–0.99, p < 0.01; lying down: ρ = 0.88–0.93, 95% CI = 0.81–0.98, p < 0.01). The Wilcoxon signed-rank tests for each APAFOP-C domain results indicated that there was no significant difference between paired scores of the three raters (p > 0.05) (Table 3). Furthermore, very strong correlations were found among the scores of the raters for walking (ρ = 0.94–0.96, 95% CI = 0.90–0.98, p < 0.01), outdoor activity (ρ = 0.95– 0.98, 95% CI = 0.90– 0.99, p < 0.01), sitting (ICC = 0.96–0.98, 95% CI = 0.94–0.99, p < 0.01), and sports activity (ρ = 1.00, p < 0.01) (Table 3).

The findings from the Bland-Altman plots indicated that the difference in limits of agreements (LoAs) between reference-rater 1 and any of the other raters obtained a threshold that marked a clear but acceptable difference. Following the plot for the agreement between rater 1 and rater 3 (Fig. 2), it appeared that a near-perfect correlation existed for the APAFOP-C but with slight bias, as most points within the plot were close to the mean and zero line. The LoAs for rater 1 and rater 3 were also narrow, with a difference in lying down of between − 1.12 and 1.12. Furthermore, both plots (Figs. 3 and 4) presented linear relationships that could be observed across the mean line, suggesting that rater 2 over- to under-reported total PA scores as the mean increased. These LoAs were also narrow, with differences between rater 1 and rater 2 of − 1.51 to 1.51 (Fig. 3) and between rater 3 and rater 2 of − 1.33 to 1.33 (Fig. 4).

Fig. 2
figure 2

Bland-Altman plot of total PA score agreement between rater 1 and rater 3

Full size image
Fig. 3
figure 3

Bland-Altman plot of total PA score agreement between rater 1 and rater 2

Full size image
Fig. 4
figure 4

Bland-Altman plot of total PA score agreement between rater 3 and rater 2

Full size image

Criterion validity

Criterion validity was assessed with the data of 124 participants by comparing the scores of APAFOP-C with total step counts of the pedometer, an objective measure of PA selected as a gold standard. The total score of APAFOP-C along with the active or inactive PA scores calculated based on the domain activities were used for the comparisons. The results showed moderate correlations for inactive PA (ρ=−0.58, 95% CI = − 0.45- −0.071), active PA (ρ = 0.60, 95% CI = 0.45–0.71), and total PA scores (ρ = 0.61, 95% CI = 0.46–0.72) with the pedometer readings. Weak but significant correlations were observed for walking (ρ = 0.37, 95% CI = 0.20–0.53) and indoor activity (ρ = 0.32, 95% CI = 0.14–0.48). A negative but significant correlation was found for the sitting score (r = − 0.27, p < 0.01). No significant correlations were found in the outdoor activity, lying down, and sports activity domains with the pedometer readings (Table 4). In addition, the results of the Bland-Altman analysis for total PA score and pedometer readings demonstrated a narrow LoA (Fig. 5).

Table 4 Criterion validity of APAFOP-C with pedometer readings
Full size table
Fig. 5
figure 5

Bland-Altman plot of agreement of total PA score between the APAFOP-C and pedometer readings. Note The data in this Bland-Altman plot have been normalized to Z-scores, which adjust for differences in measurement scales to make them comparable. The x-axis represents the mean Z-score of the pedometer and APAFOP-C total score, while the y-axis shows the difference between the Z-scores of the pedometer readings and APAFOP-C total scores

Full size image

Discussion

This study assessed the test-retest, inter-rater, and criterion validity of the Chinese version of APAFOP among frail older adults living in the community. The results indicated acceptable test-retest and inter-rater reliability for the total PA scores, as well as the subdomain scores of APAFOP-C. An objective measure of physical activity, the pedometer, showed moderate criterion validity when compared with the total score, inactive PA, and active PA scores of the APAFOP-C.

This study supports the test-retest reliability of the APAFOP-C at intervals of 7–14 days, with a moderate-to-very strong correlation. This result was consistent with those of Hauer et al. [23], who found no significant variation in the total PA score among both cognitively impaired (ICC = 0.98) and normal (ICC = 0.97) older adults with frailty. Moreover, our results were comparable to those of another study testing the psychometric properties of the APAFOP, which demonstrated the highest test–retest reliability (ICC = 0.99) [24].

We also evaluated inter-rater reliability using Bland-Altman plots. The calculations in this study were based on absolute agreement among three raters and pair-wise comparisons of different raters for each participant. The results indicated that the correlation coefficient values were all strong to very strong, and the Bland-Altman plots indicated that the differences in LoA between reference-rater 1 and the other two raters were clearly different. However, each comparison showed a narrow LoA. In comparison with the mean line, the variation was smallest between reference-rater 1 and rater 3, who received formal training before the study. In comparison to other raters, Rater 2 overestimated total PA scores, but the difference was not statistically significant, and the LoA was narrow. The results support the hypothesis that prior training can minimize inter-rater variability, while utilizing user manuals without formal training also results in reliable results.

When total APAFOP-C score was compared with a pedometer as a gold standard measure of PA, there was a moderate correlation in criterion validity. The Bland-Altman analysis also indicated good agreement between total APAFOP-C score and pedometer readings. These results were comparable to those of Hauer et al. [23] and Moldes et al. [24], who demonstrated correlations with Physilog- and accelerometer-derived data as r = 0.70 and r = 0.65, respectively, and found a narrow LoA (from − 3.163 to 3.775) [23]. However, the correlations of pedometer readings were not sufficient as a gold standard when comparing active and inactive PA scores of APAFOP-C [43]. Pedometers tend to underestimate steps in older adults who live in the community [44], especially those with slower gait speeds. In motion-capture systems like pedometers, which measure vertical accelerations to define positions, it would be difficult to distinguish between lying down and sitting, particularly when frail older adults rest in almost-lying-down positions [45]. In spite of these limitations, good agreement by the Bland-Altman analysis and significant negative correlation between pedometer steps with inactive PA scores (such as lying down and sitting) suggests that the APAFOP-C is sensitive to capturing activities involving minimal physical movement. For frail older individuals, these low-intensity activities and inactive postures occupy most of their time, so the APAFOP-C can be used to assess their physical activity profiles.

When we compared inactive APAFOP-C scores (outdoor and sports activity) with pedometer readings, we found weaker correlations, probably because only a few older adults reported doing these types of activities. Both of these activities require older adults with frailty to leave their homes, and many of them do not enjoy exercising. Furthermore, the data were collected during the COVID-19 pandemic, which significantly decreased outdoor or sports-related activity time for older adults with frailty [46]. According to these findings, it is warranted to examine the criterion validity of APAFOP-C in relation to these types of physical activities.

The study has several strengths, including the fact that we are focusing on physical activities of frail older adults in the community, a group that is typically understudied and neglected. In contrast to most PA questionnaires, the APAFOP-C required participants to recall their PA over the previous 24 h, allowing for the detection of subtle changes in PA over time. The strong inter-rater reliability demonstrated suggests that the APAFOP-C user manual was clear and beneficial for researchers, and it was confirmed that adherence to the guidelines provided in the manual during the interviews could effectively minimize measurement bias.

However, several limitations should be considered in the interpretation of the findings. Due to the fact that the pedometer provides only total steps for 24 h and was insensitive to inactive physical activity, the criterion validity of certain subdomains of APAFOP-C was not sufficient to the required level. The environmental factors (COVID-19 pandemic) during the data collection period may also contribute to the reduced outdoor or sports activity participation for this population, which made more difficult to assess the full range of activities by both objective and subjective measures. In addition, due to the interview-based nature and the subjectivity of the APAFOP-C, there is potential for measurement error compared to the recording-based measure. We recommend that researchers thoroughly review the user manual prior to conducting interviews to minimize various biases. Although we demonstrated that the APAFOP-C is a valid and cost-effective measure of PA in older adults with frailty, there are unique challenges in applying this scale. While PA variability appears to decrease with age and limited functional status, PA is not a static behavior and involves multiple separate dimensions. Our findings based on test-retest reliability provided ample evidence that the APAFOP-C can record the habitual PA of the participants. However, this daily variation of PA in frail and sedentary populations cannot be ignored. It is recommended that future studies examine whether the APAFOP-C could effectively assess these subtle changes in PA since PA can provide a roadmap for treating and preventing frailty in this population [8].

Conclusion

The findings of this study suggest that the APAFOP-C is a feasible PROM with reasonable psychometric properties and is reliable in assessing different intensities and various domains of PA among community-residing older adults with frailty. The APAFOP-C provides a tailored approach to assess the PA level of older adults with frailty over a relatively short period. Moreover, the study has highlighted the need to use the same questionnaire in surveillance studies to compare and follow up on the PA levels of older adults with frailty and to develop individualized exercise programs based on the data derived from the APAFOP-C. The APAFOP-C also retains the same calculation and classification of items as the original English version; only some activities were modified due to the characteristics of the Chinese circumstances, and the layout was changed for convenience. The APAFOP-C therefore seems to be an efficient and low-burden assessment tool that can be used to determine and differentiate PA levels in frail older adults.

Data availability

The datasets generated and/or analysed during the current study are available in the ICPSR repository (openicpsr-198486).

Abbreviations

PA:

Physical activity

APAFOP:

Assessment of physical activity in frail older people

APAFOP-C:

Chinese version of the assessment of physical activity in frail older people

ICC:

Intraclass correlation coefficient

MDC95 :

Minimal detectable changes at the 95% confidence level

SEM:

Standard error of measurement

PROM:

Patient-reported outcome measure

LoA:

Limit of agreement

References

  1. Bland JM, Altman D. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 1986;327(8476):307–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Fried LP, Tangen CM, Walston J, Newman AB, Hirsch C, Gottdiener J, et al. Frailty in older adults: evidence for a phenotype. Journals Gerontol Ser A: Biol Sci Med Sci. 2001;56(3):M146–57.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Oliveira JS, Pinheiro MB, Fairhall N, Walsh S, Franks TC, Kwok W, et al. Evidence on physical activity and the prevention of frailty and sarcopenia among older people: a systematic review to inform the World Health Organization physical activity guidelines. J Phys Activity Health. 2020;17(12):1247–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Yarasheski KE, Pak-Loduca J, Hasten DL, Obert KA, Brown MB, Sinacore DR. Resistance exercise training increases mixed muscle protein synthesis rate in frail women and men ≥ 76 year old. Am J Physiology-Endocrinology Metabolism. 1999;277(1):E118–25.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Angulo J, El Assar M, Álvarez-Bustos A, Rodríguez-Mañas L. Physical activity and exercise: strategies to manage frailty. Redox Biol. 2020;35:101513.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Hubbard RE, Woodhouse KW. Frailty, inflammation and the elderly. Biogerontology. 2010;11(5):635–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Ruan Y, Guo Y, Kowal P, Lu Y, Liu C, Sun S, et al. Association between anemia and frailty in 13,175 community-dwelling adults aged 50 years and older in China. BMC Geriatr. 2019;19:1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Fried LP. Interventions for human frailty: physical activity as a model. Cold Spring Harbor Perspect Med. 2016;6(6):a025916.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Haider S, Grabovac I, Dorner TE. Effects of physical activity interventions in frail and prefrail community-dwelling people on frailty status, muscle strength, physical performance and muscle mass—a narrative review. Wiener Klinische Wochenschrift. 2019;131:244–54.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. McPhee JS, French DP, Jackson D, Nazroo J, Pendleton N, Degens H. Physical activity in older age: perspectives for healthy ageing and frailty. Biogerontology. 2016;17:567–80.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Baert V, Gorus E, Mets T, Geerts C, Bautmans I. Motivators and barriers for physical activity in the oldest old: a systematic review. Ageing Res Rev. 2011;10(4):464–74.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Kehler DS, Clara I, Hiebert B, Stammers AN, Hay JL, Schultz A, et al. The association between bouts of moderate to vigorous physical activity and patterns of sedentary behavior with frailty. Exp Gerontol. 2018;104:28–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Hupin D, Roche F, Gremeaux V, Chatard J-C, Oriol M, Gaspoz J-M et al. Even a low-dose of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity reduces mortality by 22% in adults aged ≥ 60 years: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Sports Med. 2015.

  14. Kelly P, Fitzsimons C, Baker G. Should we reframe how we think about physical activity and sedentary behaviour measurement? Validity and reliability reconsidered. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Activity. 2016;13:1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Troiano RP, McClain JJ, Brychta RJ, Chen KY. Evolution of accelerometer methods for physical activity research. Br J Sports Med. 2014.

  16. Kowalski K, Rhodes R, Naylor P-J, Tuokko H, MacDonald S. Direct and indirect measurement of physical activity in older adults: a systematic review of the literature. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Activity. 2012;9(1):1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Sattler MC, Ainsworth BE, Andersen LB, Foster C, Hagströmer M, Jaunig J, et al. Physical activity self-reports: past or future? BMJ Publishing Group Ltd and British Association of Sport and Exercise Medicine; 2021.

  18. Jansen FM, Prins RG, Etman A, van der Ploeg HP, de Vries SI, van Lenthe FJ, et al. Physical activity in non-frail and frail older adults. PLoS ONE. 2015;10(4):e0123168.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Levine JA. Non-exercise activity thermogenesis (NEAT). Best practice & Research Clinical. Endocrinol Metabolism. 2002;16(4):679–702.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Nigg CR, Fuchs R, Gerber M, Jekauc D, Koch T, Krell-Roesch J, et al. Assessing physical activity through questionnaires–A consensus of best practices and future directions. Psychol Sport Exerc. 2020;50:101715.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Jørstad-Stein EC, Hauer K, Becker C, Bonnefoy M, Nakash RA, Skelton DA, et al. Suitability of physical activity questionnaires for older adults in fall-prevention trials: a systematic review. J Aging Phys Act. 2005;13(4):461–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Prince SA, Adamo KB, Hamel ME, Hardt J, Gorber SC, Tremblay M. A comparison of direct versus self-report measures for assessing physical activity in adults: a systematic review. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Activity. 2008;5(1):1–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Hauer K, Lord SR, Lindemann U, Lamb SE, Aminian K, Schwenk M. Assessment of physical activity in older people with and without cognitive impairment. J Aging Phys Act. 2011;19(4):347–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Moldes ÁC, Lastra MAS, Pérez CA, Carral JMC. Validez y fiabilidad del cuestionario APAFOP en población española anciana e institucionalizada con deterioro cognitivo. Revista Andaluza De Med Del Deporte. 2019;12(4):322–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Beaton D, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, Ferraz MB. Recommendations for the cross-cultural adaptation of health status measures. Volume 12. New York: American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons; 2002. pp. 1–9. 2.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Willis GB. Cognitive interviewing: a tool for improving questionnaire design. sage; 2004.

  27. Li Y, Lyu L, Fan X, Xu L, Zhao R, Jiang Y, et al. Translation and linguistic validation of the Assessment of Physical Activity in Frail Older people into simplified Chinese using cognitive interviewing methodology. J Aging Phys Act. 2022;31(3):383–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Dong L, Qiao X, Tian X, Liu N, Jin Y, Si H, et al. Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the FRAIL scale in Chinese Community-Dwelling older adults. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2018;19(1):12–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Mokkink LB, de Vet H, Diemeer S, Eekhout I. Sample size recommendations for studies on reliability and measurement error: an online application based on simulation studies. Health Serv Outcomes Res Method. 2023;23(3):241–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Thurmond VA. The point of triangulation. J Nurs Scholarsh. 2001;33(3):253–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Dijkstra B, Zijlstra W, Scherder E, Kamsma Y. Detection of walking periods and number of steps in older adults and patients with Parkinson’s disease: accuracy of a pedometer and an accelerometry-based method. Age Ageing. 2008;37(4):436–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Le Masurier GC, Lee SM, Tudor-Locke C. Motion sensor accuracy under controlled and free-living conditions. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2004;36(5):905–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Crouter SE, Schneider PL, Karabulut M, Bassett DR. Jr. Validity of 10 electronic pedometers for measuring steps, distance, and energy cost. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2003;35(8):1455–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Schneider PL, Crouter SE, Lukajic O, Bassett DR Jr. Accuracy and reliability of 10 pedometers for measuring steps over a 400-m walk. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2003;35(10):1779–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Hart TL, Swartz AM, Cashin SE, Strath SJ. How many days of monitoring predict physical activity and sedentary behaviour in older adults? Int J Behav Nutr Phys Activity. 2011;8(1):1–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Scott D, Blizzard L, Fell J, Giles G, Jones G. Associations between dietary nutrient intake and muscle mass and strength in community-dwelling older adults: the tasmanian older adult cohort study. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2010;58(11):2129–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Keszei AP, Novak M, Streiner DL. Introduction to health measurement scales. J Psychosom Res. 2010;68(4):319–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Marx RG, Menezes A, Horovitz L, Jones EC, Warren RF. A comparison of two time intervals for test-retest reliability of health status instruments. J Clin Epidemiol. 2003;56(8):730–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Guillemin F, Bombardier C, Beaton D. Cross-cultural adaptation of health-related quality of life measures: literature review and proposed guidelines. J Clin Epidemiol. 1993;46(12):1417–32.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Stratford PW, Knol DL, et al. COSMIN checklist manual. Amsterdam: University Medical Center; 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Schober P, Boer C, Schwarte LA. Correlation coefficients: appropriate use and interpretation. Anesth Analg. 2018;126(5):1763–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Tudor-Locke C, Craig CL, Aoyagi Y, Bell RC, Croteau KA, De Bourdeaudhuij I, et al. How many steps/day are enough? For older adults and special populations. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2011;8:80.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Terwee CB, Bot SD, de Boer MR, van der Windt DA, Knol DL, Dekker J, et al. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60(1):34–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Storti KL, Pettee KK, Brach JS, Talkowski JB, Richardson CR, Kriska AM. Gait speed and step-count monitor accuracy in community-dwelling older adults. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2008;40(1):59–64.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Corder K, Brage S, Ekelund U. Accelerometers and pedometers: methodology and clinical application. Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metabolic Care. 2007;10(5):597–603.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Wang Y, Zhang Y, Bennell K, White DK, Wei J, Wu Z, et al. Physical distancing measures and walking activity in middle-aged and older residents in Changsha, China, during the COVID-19 epidemic period: longitudinal observational study. J Med Internet Res. 2020;22(10):e21632.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We express our deepest appreciation to all the participants for their valuable contributions to this study. We also thank the research assistants who participated in data collection and analysis.

Funding

This work was jointly supported by National Research Foundation of Korea (2022R1A2C2011502), National Natural Science Foundation of China (no. 71904073), and BK21 FOUR program by Chungnam National University Research Grant, 2022. The funding bodies had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. College of Nursing, Chungnam National University, Daejeon, Republic of Korea

    Yuelin Li, Linyu Lyu, Xing Fan & Rhayun Song

  2. School of Medicine, Lishui University, Lishui, China

    Xing Fan & Lijuan Xu

  3. Department of Education, Chungnam National University, Daejeon, Republic of Korea

    Yan Li

Authors
  1. Yuelin Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Linyu Lyu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Xing Fan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Lijuan Xu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Yan Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Rhayun Song
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

YLL and RS designed the study and YLL, RS and LJX received funding to conduct the study. YLL, LYL, and XF involved data collection and LYL, XF, and YL conducted analysis and prepared the tables and figures which were validated by YLL, RS, LJX, and XF. YLL, LYL, XF, LJX, and YL wrote the main manuscript text, and all authors reviewed the manuscript. All authors meet authorship criteria and read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rhayun Song.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The study was conducted following the Declaration of Helsinki. The study protocol was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the School of Medicine at Lishui University in China (Approval No. 2022-0001). The purpose and procedure of this study were explained to all study participants. Informed consent was obtained in writing, and their right to withdraw from the study whenever they wanted to without penalty and the assurance of keeping information confidential were explained.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Li, Y., Lyu, L., Fan, X. et al. Reliability, validity and minimal detectable change of the Chinese Version of the Assessment of Physical Activity in Frail Older People (APAFOP-C). BMC Geriatr 24, 582 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-024-05167-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-024-05167-y

Keywords

BMC Geriatrics

ISSN: 1471-2318

Contact us