| Title |
Validation of the Spanish version of the Pittsburgh Fatigability Scale for older adults
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Aging Clinical and Experimental Research, May 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s40520-018-0959-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Laura M. Pérez, Marta Roqué, Nancy W. Glynn, Adam J. Santanasto, Maria Ramoneda, Maria T. Molins, Laura Coll-Planas, Patricia Vidal, Marco Inzitari |
| Abstract |
The Pittsburgh Fatigability Scale (PFS) is the only validated scale for measuring perceived fatigability in older adults. We validated the PFS Spanish version by assessing convergent validity with respect to several measures of physical performance, physical activity, physical function and disability. A cross-sectional validation study of 79 community-dwelling older adults aged 70 and older from Barcelona, Spain was included. Translation-retrotranslation was performed. Convergent validity was assessed in relation to physical activity and performance measurements, and analyzed with Spearman correlation coefficients, a linear trend test and non-linear regression. We also assessed the discriminant validity of the PFS physical score between participants with different physical activity and performance levels. Higher PFS physical scores were inversely associated with the Short Physical Performance Battery (r = - 0.5, p < 0.001) and weak to moderately correlated with gait speed (r = 0.38, p = 0.001), and self-reported weekly walking time (r = 0.24, p = 0.035). The PFS is a novel, brief instrument to assess fatigability in Spanish-speaking older adults, with good convergent validity against physical performance measurements. Thus, the PFS can be used in Spanish-speaking populations. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 28 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 13 | 46% |
| Unknown | 15 | 54% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 23 | 82% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 4 | 14% |
| Scientists | 1 | 4% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 57 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 57 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 9% |
| Researcher | 4 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 9 | 16% |
| Unknown | 21 | 37% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 9 | 16% |
| Sports and Recreations | 7 | 12% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 9% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 7% |
| Neuroscience | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 6 | 11% |
| Unknown | 23 | 40% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 May 2018.
All research outputs
#2,109,454
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Aging Clinical and Experimental Research
#126
of 1,868 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#43,409
of 341,279 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Aging Clinical and Experimental Research
#2
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,868 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 341,279 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.