ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2022
Developing a Cross-National Disability Measure for Older Adult Populations across Korea, China, and Japan.
Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study aims to develop a universal scale for comparing cognitive and physical functions among countries using health survey data from China, Korea, and Japan. This study used the data of 934 participants from the Korean Longitude Study of Aging, 2506 participants from the China Health and Retirement Longitude Study, and 178 participants from the Japanese Study of Aging and Retirement. Each physical and cognitive function item in the three countries has five key items. The anchoring method used the key items to link each cognitive and physical function of the three countries. We investigated the psychometric characteristics of the final item using the Rasch analysis. We extracted 13 items of 19 cognitive function items and 20 items out of 29 physical function items using the anchoring method and the Rasch analysis. The Rasch analysis showed good fit statistics for 13 cognitive function items and 20 physical function items. The measurement scale developed in this study will enable valid comparisons of older adults' cognitive and physical functions across these three countries.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.