Força de preensão palmar em idosos com demência: estudo da confiabilidade

Mariana Asmar Alencar, João Marcos Domingues Dias, L. C. Figueiredo, R. Dias
{"title":"Força de preensão palmar em idosos com demência: estudo da confiabilidade","authors":"Mariana Asmar Alencar, João Marcos Domingues Dias, L. C. Figueiredo, R. Dias","doi":"10.1590/S1413-35552012005000059","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Measuring instruments should have their scientific and clinical value evaluated in different populations. The handgrip strength test is widely used, however little has been investigated about its reliability when used in elderly with dementia and the right stage wich its use should be avoided. Objectives: To evaluate the test-retest reliability of the handgrip strength test in elderly with different ratings of dementia. Method: The cognitive function of 76 elderly subjects with dementia was measured, and the caregivers were interviewed to allow classification by the Clinical dementia rating (CDR). For these assessments the Mini-Metal State Examination and the Pfeffer, Lawton, and Katz scales were used. Twenty subjects were classified as borderline (83.4± 5.8 years), 19 as mild (82.4±6.8 years), 19 as moderate (85.8±5.6 years) and 18 as severe dementia (84.0±5.1 years). Handgrip strength was assessed with a JAMAR hydraulic dynamometer and after one week it was reevaluated. Reliability was analyzed by Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC). The significance level was set at α=0.05. Results: Test-retest reliability was excellent for groups with borderline (ICC=0.975; p=0.001), mild (ICC=0.968; p=0.002), and moderate (ICC=0.964; p=0.001) dementia. The analysis of the group with a severe CDR showed no statistical significance and a low ICC (ICC=0.415; p=0.376). Conclusion: The handgrip strength test has excellent reliability when used in elderly with borderline, mild, and moderate dementia, which enables its use in research. However, its use is not recommended in elderly classified with severe dementia due to the measure's low reliability and subsequent irrelevance in clinical practice.","PeriodicalId":21195,"journal":{"name":"Revista Brasileira De Fisioterapia","volume":"29 1","pages":"510-514"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2012-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"43","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Revista Brasileira De Fisioterapia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1590/S1413-35552012005000059","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 43

Abstract

Background: Measuring instruments should have their scientific and clinical value evaluated in different populations. The handgrip strength test is widely used, however little has been investigated about its reliability when used in elderly with dementia and the right stage wich its use should be avoided. Objectives: To evaluate the test-retest reliability of the handgrip strength test in elderly with different ratings of dementia. Method: The cognitive function of 76 elderly subjects with dementia was measured, and the caregivers were interviewed to allow classification by the Clinical dementia rating (CDR). For these assessments the Mini-Metal State Examination and the Pfeffer, Lawton, and Katz scales were used. Twenty subjects were classified as borderline (83.4± 5.8 years), 19 as mild (82.4±6.8 years), 19 as moderate (85.8±5.6 years) and 18 as severe dementia (84.0±5.1 years). Handgrip strength was assessed with a JAMAR hydraulic dynamometer and after one week it was reevaluated. Reliability was analyzed by Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC). The significance level was set at α=0.05. Results: Test-retest reliability was excellent for groups with borderline (ICC=0.975; p=0.001), mild (ICC=0.968; p=0.002), and moderate (ICC=0.964; p=0.001) dementia. The analysis of the group with a severe CDR showed no statistical significance and a low ICC (ICC=0.415; p=0.376). Conclusion: The handgrip strength test has excellent reliability when used in elderly with borderline, mild, and moderate dementia, which enables its use in research. However, its use is not recommended in elderly classified with severe dementia due to the measure's low reliability and subsequent irrelevance in clinical practice.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
老年痴呆患者的握力:信度研究
背景:测量仪器应在不同人群中评估其科学和临床价值。握力测试被广泛使用,但其在老年痴呆患者中应用的可靠性及应避免使用的正确阶段的研究却很少。目的:评价不同痴呆评分老年人握力测验的重测信度。方法:对76例老年痴呆患者的认知功能进行测量,并对照顾者进行访谈,采用临床痴呆评分(CDR)进行分类。在这些评估中,使用了迷你金属状态检查和Pfeffer, Lawton和Katz量表。20例为交界性痴呆(83.4±5.8岁),19例为轻度痴呆(82.4±6.8岁),19例为中度痴呆(85.8±5.6岁),18例为重度痴呆(84.0±5.1岁)。用JAMAR液压测功仪评估握力,一周后重新评估。采用类内相关系数(Intraclass Correlation Coefficient, ICC)分析信度。显著性水平设为α=0.05。结果:临界组重测信度极好(ICC=0.975;p=0.001),轻度(ICC=0.968;p=0.002),中度(ICC=0.964;p = 0.001)痴呆。重症CDR组分析无统计学意义,ICC低(ICC=0.415;p = 0.376)。结论:握力测试在老年边缘性、轻度、中度痴呆患者中具有良好的信度,可用于研究。然而,由于该方法的可靠性较低且与临床实践无关,不建议在重度痴呆的老年人中使用该方法。
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 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Analysis of the use of Kinect technology as a therapeutic alternative to improve physical capacities in older adults Results of the application of pulmonary physiotherapy in a 38-year-old post-COVID19 patient after severe pneumonia and type 2 diabetes mellitus Application of neurohabilitation therapy in a six-month-old pediatric patient as a treatment for neurodevelopmental delay (clinical case) Estudio comparativo entre el índice de masa corporal y el control postural en alumnos sanos de la carrera de Terapia Física de la Universidad Politécnica de Pachuca Acompañamiento terapéutico para la aceptación o rechazo de una prótesis: Caso de paciente infantil con amputación de miembro superior izquierdo
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1