An Incomplete Model of Disability: Discrepancies Between Performance-Based and Self-Reported Measures of Functioning

Erica Twardzik, Jennifer A Schrack, Vicki A Freedman, Nicholas S Reed, Joshua R Ehrlich, Pablo Martinez-Amezcua
{"title":"An Incomplete Model of Disability: Discrepancies Between Performance-Based and Self-Reported Measures of Functioning","authors":"Erica Twardzik, Jennifer A Schrack, Vicki A Freedman, Nicholas S Reed, Joshua R Ehrlich, Pablo Martinez-Amezcua","doi":"10.1093/gerona/glad271","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background Appropriate conceptualization and measurement of disability are critical for population-focused resource allocation and policy development. Self-reported and performance-based measures of functioning have been used to represent disability. Variation in environmental context or self-perception of ability may influence self-reports; however, performance-based measures that attempt to control environmental context may not accurately capture real-world aspects of functioning. This study examined the agreement between self-report and performance-based measures of functioning within four domains among older adults. Methods Cross-sectional data from the 2021 National Health and Aging Trends Study was used. Self-reported and performance-based measures of functioning were assessed for vision, hearing, mobility, and memory domains. We examined the diagnostic characteristics of performance-based vs. self-reported measures using sensitivity, specificity, and receiver operating characteristics curves. Differences in the agreement of these measures across sociodemographic groups was investigated using logistic regression. Results Among 2,442 respondents 71 years and older (mean 78.5 ±5.3, 56% female), performance measures of hearing and mobility had high sensitivity (89% and 91%, respectively) and low/moderate specificity (36% and 63%, respectively). The sensitivity and specificity of vision measures were 71%. Memory measures had high specificity (89%) and low sensitivity (28%). Performance-based discrimination ranged from 0.59 (memory) to 0.78 (mobility). Agreement varied across sociodemographic factors. Conclusions Performance measures diverge from self-reported functioning among older adults. Discordance may reveal opportunities for environmental intervention where participants' performance does not capture the full extent of barriers in the daily lives. Additional research is needed to investigate individual and environmental factors which could explain the observed differences.","PeriodicalId":22892,"journal":{"name":"The Journals of Gerontology Series A: Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences","volume":"252 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Journals of Gerontology Series A: Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/gerona/glad271","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background Appropriate conceptualization and measurement of disability are critical for population-focused resource allocation and policy development. Self-reported and performance-based measures of functioning have been used to represent disability. Variation in environmental context or self-perception of ability may influence self-reports; however, performance-based measures that attempt to control environmental context may not accurately capture real-world aspects of functioning. This study examined the agreement between self-report and performance-based measures of functioning within four domains among older adults. Methods Cross-sectional data from the 2021 National Health and Aging Trends Study was used. Self-reported and performance-based measures of functioning were assessed for vision, hearing, mobility, and memory domains. We examined the diagnostic characteristics of performance-based vs. self-reported measures using sensitivity, specificity, and receiver operating characteristics curves. Differences in the agreement of these measures across sociodemographic groups was investigated using logistic regression. Results Among 2,442 respondents 71 years and older (mean 78.5 ±5.3, 56% female), performance measures of hearing and mobility had high sensitivity (89% and 91%, respectively) and low/moderate specificity (36% and 63%, respectively). The sensitivity and specificity of vision measures were 71%. Memory measures had high specificity (89%) and low sensitivity (28%). Performance-based discrimination ranged from 0.59 (memory) to 0.78 (mobility). Agreement varied across sociodemographic factors. Conclusions Performance measures diverge from self-reported functioning among older adults. Discordance may reveal opportunities for environmental intervention where participants' performance does not capture the full extent of barriers in the daily lives. Additional research is needed to investigate individual and environmental factors which could explain the observed differences.
不完整的残疾模型:基于表现的功能测量与自我报告的功能测量之间的差异
背景 对残疾进行适当的概念化和测量,对于以人口为重点的资源分配和政策制定至关重要。人们使用自我报告和基于表现的功能测量来表示残疾。环境背景或自我认知能力的差异可能会影响自我报告;然而,试图控制环境背景的基于表现的测量方法可能无法准确捕捉功能的真实世界方面。本研究考察了老年人自我报告和基于表现的功能测量在四个领域中的一致性。方法 采用 2021 年全国健康与老龄化趋势研究的横断面数据。对视力、听力、行动能力和记忆力进行了自我报告和基于表现的功能测量评估。我们使用灵敏度、特异性和接收器操作特征曲线来检验基于表现的测量与自我报告的测量的诊断特征。我们还使用逻辑回归法研究了不同社会人口组别在这些测量结果一致性方面的差异。结果 在 2 442 名 71 岁及以上的受访者中(平均 78.5 ±5.3,56% 为女性),听力和行动能力的绩效测量具有较高的灵敏度(分别为 89% 和 91%)和较低/中等的特异性(分别为 36% 和 63%)。视力测量的灵敏度和特异性均为 71%。记忆测量的特异性较高(89%),灵敏度较低(28%)。基于表现的区分度从 0.59(记忆力)到 0.78(行动能力)不等。不同的社会人口学因素所产生的一致性也不同。结论 老年人的表现测量与自我报告的功能存在差异。这种不一致可能揭示了环境干预的机会,因为参与者的表现并不能完全反映日常生活中的障碍。还需要进行更多的研究,以调查可能解释观察到的差异的个人和环境因素。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信