ArticlePeerJ2025
Development and content validity of the evaluation of multidimensional functioning and risks in aging scale.
Article in PeerJ, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Rising life expectancy has led to an increased prevalence of age-related conditions such as pain, dementia, and falls. To address these challenges, healthcare systems require efficient tools to identify which health domains are preserved or impaired in older adults. Existing frailty instruments present both conceptual and operational limitations. Therefore, there is a need to shift toward domain-specific evaluations of functioning and potential risks, aligned with established protocols such as the Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment and framed within the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). This study aimed to develop the Evaluation of Multidimensional Functioning and Risks in Aging (EMFRA) scale, encompassing four assessment domains: physical function, cognitive function, emotional status, and social situation. Methods: The EMFRA scale was developed by identifying potential items through a comprehensive literature review and expert input. The first preliminary version was validated by a panel of 15 experts, who assessed the scale's clarity, coherence, and relevance using a 5-point Likert scale. Cognitive interviews were then conducted with 10 clinicians and 10 older adults to evaluate the comprehensibility and practical applicability of the second preliminary version. Results: Following the literature review, 24 items were grouped into four domains (six items per domain), each supported by evidence linking them to health-related adverse outcomes. Expert evaluation showed substantial agreement on comprehension, coherence, and relevance (Aiken's V >0.7) for all but two items-language and fear-which were excluded. Cognitive interviews led to the exclusion of one additional item (sedentarism) and further refinement of the remaining items. These changes were incorporated into the final version of EMFRA, enhancing its usability and comprehensiveness. Conclusion: EMFRA provides a multidimensional framework for assessing functioning and risks in older adults, capturing physical, cognitive, emotional, and social factors. The inclusion of end-user feedback ensured the scale's practical relevance. However, the current version of EMFRA should not yet be used in clinical practice, as further psychometric validation is required to confirm its utility.
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.