• Users Online: 1551
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page
Home About us Editorial board Ahead of print Browse Articles Search Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 


 
 Table of Contents  
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2019  |  Volume : 10  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 130

Iranian version of barthel index: validity and reliability in outpatients' elderly


1 Department of Elderly Health Research, Endocrinology and Metabolism Population Sciences Institute, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
2 Department of Elderly Health Research, Endocrinology and Metabolism Population Sciences Institute; Department of Gerontology and Geriatric, Medical School, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
3 Department of Gerontology and Geriatric, Medical School, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
4 Department of Occupational Therapy, Shohada Hospital, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

Date of Submission01-Jan-2019
Date of Acceptance11-Apr-2019
Date of Web Publication01-Aug-2019

Correspondence Address:
Mahtab Alizadeh-Khoei
Department of Clinical Gerontology and Geriatrics, Medical School, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran
Iran
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/ijpvm.IJPVM_579_18

Rights and Permissions
  Abstract 


Background: Validation study of Barthel Index for elderly patients being attended in outpatient and rehabilitation clinics in Iran. Methods: Face-to-face interview with 395 out patients geriatric 60+ years was done in a cross-sectional study. The internal consistency Barthel-ADL was used to approve reliability. Criterion validity and factor analysis were used to verify validity. Results: Reliability the Iranian version BI was significant at 0.938. In criterion validity analysis, the high correlation tools included Functional Ambulation Category (FAC) and Foot and Ankle Ability Measure (FAAM-subscales ADL) at 0.947 and –0.945, respectively. In factor analyses, two domains obtained, the variance of 10 items achieved 69.79%; also, the Item Total Correlation (ITC) of each item was measured. Conclusions: The Barthel Index shows a good validity and reliability, and recommended to use in the Iranian geriatric outpatients in evaluating physical ability.

Keywords: Barthel-ADL, elderly, geriatric outpatients, Iran, validity


How to cite this article:
Hormozi S, Alizadeh-Khoei M, Sharifi F, Taati F, Aminalroaya R, Fadaee S, Angooti-Oshnari L, Saghebi H. Iranian version of barthel index: validity and reliability in outpatients' elderly. Int J Prev Med 2019;10:130

How to cite this URL:
Hormozi S, Alizadeh-Khoei M, Sharifi F, Taati F, Aminalroaya R, Fadaee S, Angooti-Oshnari L, Saghebi H. Iranian version of barthel index: validity and reliability in outpatients' elderly. Int J Prev Med [serial online] 2019 [cited 2019 Oct 20];10:130. Available from: http://www.ijpvmjournal.net/text.asp?2019/10/1/130/263934




  Introduction Top


Older adults are vulnerable to functional impairments following chronic diseases; so, initial assessment and monitoring are needed to be done.[1] Functional assessment of older people is often ignored in busy clinics, especially in nonspecific units for elderly care.[2],[3] In aging studies, the importance of ADL measurement as a physical function indicator is significant like as independent variables e.g., age and gender.[4] The specific ADL items like climbing stair, transferring, and mobility are common indicators in elderly health.[5] The Barthel Index (BI) is a practical instrument to assess ADL that evaluates a patient's capacity in different levels of independency to perform 10 daily tasks.[6] The Barthel-ADL Index was made to assessment of routine functional ability in elderly hospitalized and stroke rehabilitation clinics;[7] and often for frail elderly patients.[6] To improve clinical application in hospital acute setting, BI measures patient's functional ability to report clinical valid information about patient's status.[8] Since, settings (home, clinic, nursing home, and hospital), where Barthel-ADL is assessed, is important; it is essential to assess outpatients functional abilities in geriatric clinic.[8] We therefore, have aimed to translate and validated the Iranian version of the Barthel-ADL in outpatient setting and rehabilitation clinic.


  Methods Top


Data collection

For sampling, at least 10 individuals for each Barthel items was gathered, by a convenience sampling size method.[3] In this cross sectional study, 395 older outpatients' ≥60 years old from Shariati clinics and Tabasom Rehabilitation Center were selected by face-to-face interview technique over 12-months from June 2017 to June 2018. After study protocol approval by the clinical research ethics committee, elderly participants with an Abbreviated Mental Test (AMT) Score less than 8/10 were excluded because they were unable to sign informed consent. Meanwhile, two occupational therapists observed, directly the potency to do specific visible tasks (climbing stair, transferring, and mobility) in each participant. Demographic data (age, sex, educational level, and economic status) were collected by interviewing. Medical past history of outpatient participants gathered based on Charlson Comorbidity Index. This study approved by the ethics committee of geriatric and gerontology department in Tehran University of Medical Sciences.

Functional assessment

Barthel index of Activity daily living (ADLs)

Measures the patient's functional disability in performance of 10 activities of daily living. These activities could be grouped according to self-care abilities (feeding, grooming, bathing, dressing, continence, and toilet use) and mobility (ambulation, transferring, and climbing stair).[6] The total score is in range of 0–100, higher scores indicate better physical functioning (completely independent) and zero score indicating complete dependence.[9]

Functional ambulation categories (FAC)

The FAC is a 6-point ordinal and hierarchical scale, regardless of having personal assistive device to evaluate ambulatory functions, walking status and level of caregiver's support for patients' needs.[10] Since, it provides only details about walking mobility, does not appropriate to measure level of disability.[11]

Foot and ankle ability measure (FAAM)

The FAAM is a 29-items tool divided in two subscales: Activities of daily living (ADL) with 21 items and SPORTS with 8 items. Each item is scored in a 5-point likert scale represented different levels of difficulty from “No difficulty at all” to “Unable to do”. Total scores of the ADL and SPORTS are 84 and 32, respectively that are transformed to percentage for each subscale, which higher scores indicating high level functional status. The validity of the Iranian version of the FAAM was approved.[12]

Abbreviated mental test (AMT)

The test consists of 10 items with one score for each correct response. In community settings in this study, the AMT was performed to the home residents by a trained non-physician interviewer. Translation and validation of the Iranian version was carried out by Bakhtiyari et al. approved with cutoff AMT <8 score for the Iranian older population.[13]

SF-36 instrument

This is a general quality of life instrument[14] that measures the eight health related concepts: physical function (PF-10 items), role limitation due to physical problems (RP-4 items), body pain (BP-2 items), general health perceptions (GH-5 items), vitality (VT-4 items), social function (SF-2 items), role limitation due to emotional problems (RE-3 items), perceived mental health (MH-5 items), and a single item, indicating a perceived change in general health status in past 1-year. Translation and validation the Iranian version was carried out by Montazeri et al.[15]

Barthel-ADL translation

After approval by developer permission, the original version of Barthel-ADL was translated into the Persian language, based on modified protocol of International Quality of Life Questionnaire (IQOLA) by two individuals, independently from each other; a licensed translator, and a professional gerontologist in English and native in Persian language. Then, a translated version was delivered separately to the two Persian expert panel (a geriatrician and occupational therapist) to agree with the items translated.[14] To determine the difficulty of items, translated BI was given to ten informal caregivers, based on a 100-mm Linear Analog Scale Assessment (LASA) tool that indicating 0-100 from “Not at all difficult” to “Extremely difficult”. The mean difficulty scores ≤30 was considered as an acceptable.[14] Then, another two translators have rated the quality of translation from 0 to 100, in terms of simplicity, common language applied, and the conceptual equivalence, with the acceptable quality scores ≥60 for each three domains.[14] Next, another translator performed a backward translation to English. Then, the back translation version compared and was reconciled with the original English version that ultimately a few linguistic words were changed.

Data analysis

Descriptive and analytical statistics were computed by the software SPSS version 20. Initially, descriptive statistics were calculated for the characteristics of the subjects, frequency and percentages for categorical data, mean, SD, and range for continuous variables. Next, Cronbach's a coefficient was analyses to examine reliability of the Barthel-ADL. Relationships between BI and all criteria (AMT, FAC, level of ambulation, and FAAM; Activities of Daily Living Subscale) presented significant correlation coefficients. Then, an exploratory factor analyses was performed, using principal components analyses as the estimation method, together with varimax rotation to analyze factor structure in the Iranian version of the Barthel-ADL. Finally, spearman correlation was carried out to assess the construct validity.


  Results Top


Of 395 elderly outpatient participants, the majority were male (61.5%), with average 67.3 years old (SD = 6.04), with range 60–89 years. According to Barthel Index 163 (41.3%) elderly were fully independent and scored the maximum points (100), while 61 participants (15.4%) at least in one item were physically dependent. From viewing severity in physical function, our samples were in moderate level (Mean = 73.25, SD = 31.55). Average BI score were 85 for elderly outpatients with arthritis, score 67 for outpatients with stroke, 70 score for patients with falling, and 77 score for incontinence. Dependency in at least one ADL item were included in bathing (59%), climbing stairs (56%), dressing (41.9%), transferring (36.3%), feeding (25.9%), and 13% in toileting [Table 1]. The Functional Ambulation Categories (FAC) had the highest correlation and AMT had the lowest relationships [Table 2]. The BI with 10 items was tested to factor analyses. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure obtained 0.914 at P < 0.001. Two factors emerged with Eigen values greater than 1 that accounted for 69.79% of BI score variation [Table 3]. The second factor obtained for personal hygiene and incontinency (bowel and bladder) and the first factor included the other items. For test–retest reliability, BI analysis was repeated for 30 subjects. Intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) between the two stages by one rater in test–retest obtained 0.936 (95% CI; 0.895-0.965). The internal consistency the Iranian version BI obtained significant (Cronbach's alpha = 0.938, P < 0.001). Even, removing none of the items BI did not improve the internal consistency. The Item-Total Correlation (ITC) for bowel and urinary continence were 0.649 and 0.605, respectively, while Item-Total Correlation for the other components were at range 0.682 to 0.953 [Table 4].
Table 1: Characteristics of the Iranian outpatients' elderly participants

Click here to view
Table 2: Correlations between Barthel-ADL with FAAM, Level of ambulation, FAC, SF-36, and AMT

Click here to view
Table 3: Factor analysis for validity

Click here to view
Table 4: Reliability analysis of the Iranian version BI in geriatric outpatients

Click here to view



  Discussion Top


The Barthel Index is an effective measurement in clinical geriatric studies for functional ability monitoring in activities of daily living.[16] for showing recovery from acute status.[17] Our results had shown the Iranian version of BI has a good correlation with FAC, AMT, FAAM (Subscales of ADL), SF-36, and level of mobility in outpatient elderly population. The AMT score mostly be used in extended functional status in ADLs;[18] therefore, in our results the AMT had the lowest correlation because the BI has no item to assess mental skills and cognitive abilities.[19]

Since, BI is not reliable in cognitive impair patients by interviewing,[20] cognitive status can not a significant predictor for BI.[19] Therefore, the BI mostly is a valuable index of physical dependency and is not apply in cognitive function studies or depression.[8] Since, most previous studies were performed in hospital or rehabilitation centers, and assessing the correlations of FAAM and FAC scales, with BI together have not been studied;[18],[21] in this study, we found a good correlation by applying those scales. To define level of disability, needs assessment, and details in walking mobility, the FAC is an appropriate ordinal scale.[8] Our result viewing participants and setting was similar to Brazilian study, and was different in FAAM and FIM usage to explore BI validity.[3] Regarding subjects rating in current levels of function during ADLs,[12] Martin et al. stated usefulness of FAAM-ADL subscale as an outcome instrument to measure physical function in individuals with diabetes and foot and/or ankle disorders.[22] According our analyses, the FAAM-ADL had relatively low correlation with mental health subscale SF-36 as a concurrent measure. There is a concurrent valid test, if a test is highly correlated with another test of the same variable, which was used at the same time.[23] Martin et al. stated that ADL subscale FAAM is more sensitive in physical status changing than mental function, and also, physical components score of SF-36.[22] According to our results in associations between physical subscale SF-36 and BI, also in a psychometric study of the Spanish version of the BI, the correlation of subscale MCS-12 was less than PCS-12.[24] In another study[25] similar results were found with higher correlation between the BI and SF-36 PCS subscale than mental subscale (SF-36 MCS). Based on our results, regarding a weak Item-Total Correlations (ITC) for bowel and bladder continence, Hobart and Thompson, also observed a relatively low Item-Total Correlations for bowel and bladder functions (0.34 and 0.42, respectively), while other items correlations were varied from 0.53 to 0.83[25] Similarly, in Sri Lanka survey all items, except bowel and bladder functions had high item-total correlations.[2] While in another study Duffy et al. reported a very good reliability for them.[26]

We obtained an excellent internal consistency, means a very high inter-correlation results between the items that was better from findings in Dutch results and the original BI study (Cronbach's alpha 0.87 for both of them).[27] Meanwhile, inter- class coefficients for the items of Iranian version BI were excellent, that were similar to the other studies.[28],[29] In factor analyses for validity, we achieved two factors. Differences in the number of factors have observed by Laake et al. because of variety in population of study; but in a group of geriatric patients, they observed two-factor structure,[30] similar results observed in Sri Lanka study.[2] The major limit of our study was lack of success for expanding interviews with the participants from outpatient clinics to their home setting; where, the BI is most often used. Moreover, we could not identify the proxy respondents in a home environment.


  Conclusions Top


In conclusion, the BI is a reliable and valid tool to apply in assessing of elderly outpatients. It could be used to follow up of patients who admitted to rehabilitation clinic, even can be administered by non-professional interviewers. Since, we have found a good correlation between BI and FAC to evaluate ambulatory functions, it seems for finding level of caregiver's support for patients' needs, both tools should be applied in admission or screening of geriatric outpatients.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the staff of the clinics to helpful cooperation.

Financial support and sponsorship

This study was supported by department of Geriatric and Gerontology, Medical School, and Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Iran; project No. 96-01-30-33558.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.



 
  References Top

1.
Rahimi A, Anoosheh M, Ahmadi F, Foroughan M. Exercise and physical activity among healthy elderly Iranians. Southeast Asian J Trop Med Public Health 2011;42:444-55.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Lekamwasam S, Karunatilake K, Lekamwasam V. Physical dependency of elderly and physically disabled; measurement concordance between 10-item barthel index and 5-item shorter version. Ceylon Med J 2011;56:114-8.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Minosso JS, Amendola F, Alvarenga MR, Oliveira MA. Validation of the barthel index in elderly patients attended in outpatient clinics, in Brazil. Acta Paulista de Enfermagem 2010;23:218-23.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Rodgers W, Miller B. A comparative analysis of ADL questions in surveys of older people. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci 1997;52:21-36.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Füzéki E, Banzer W. Activities of daily living and health. Public Health Forum 2013;21:4-6.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Morley D, Selai C, Thompson A. The self-report barthel index: Preliminary validation in people with Parkinson's disease. Eur J Neurol 2012;19:927-9.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Parker S, Du X, Bardsley M, Goodfellow J, Cooper R, Cleary R, et al. Measuring outcomes in care of the elderly. J R Coll Physicians Lond 1994;28:428-33.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Quinn TJ, Langhorne P, Stott DJ. Barthel index for stroke trials: Development, properties, and application. Stroke 2011;42:1146-51.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
McRae C, Diem G, Vo A, O'Brien C, Seeberger L. Reliability of measurements of patient health status: A comparison of physician, patient, and caregiver ratings. Parkinsonism Relat Disord 2002;8:187-92.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Teasell R, Foley N, Salter K, Bhogal S, Jutai J, Speechley M. Evidence-Based Review of Stroke Rehabilitation: Executive summary, 12th edition. Top Stroke Rehabil 2009;16:463-88.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Collin C. Scales and scaling techniques used in measurement in rehabilitation medicine. Clin Rehabil 1992;6:91-6.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Mazaheri M, Salavati M, Negahban H, Sohani S, Taghizadeh F, Feizi A, et al. Reliability and validity of the persian version of Foot and ankle ability measure (FAAM) to measure functional limitations in patients with foot and ankle disorders. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2010;18:755-9.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Bakhtiyari F, Foroughan M, Fakhrzadeh H, Nazari N, Najafi B, Alizadeh M, et al. Validation of the persian version of Abbreviated mental test (AMT) in elderly residents of Kahrizak charity foundation. J Diabetes Metab Disord 2014;13:487-94.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Bullinger M, Alonso J, Apolone G, Leplège A, Sullivan M, Wood-Dauphinee S, et al. Translating health status questionnaires and evaluating their quality: The IQOLA project approach. J Clin Epidemiol 1998;51:913-23.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Montazeri A, Goshtasebi A, Vahdaninia M, Gandek B. The short form health survey (SF-36): Translation and validation study of the Iranian version. Qual Life Res 2005;14:875-82.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Liu W, Unick J, Galik E, Resnick B. Barthel index of activities of daily living: Item response theory analysis of ratings for long-term care residents. Nurs Res 2015;64:88-99.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
Fowler R, Congdon P, Hamilton S. Assessing health status and outcomes in a geriatric day hospital. Public Health 2000;114:440-5.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.
Sarker S-J, Rudd AG, Douiri A, Wolfe CD. Comparison of 2 extended activities of daily living scales with the barthel index and predictors of their outcomes: Cohort study within the South London stroke register (SLSR). Stroke 2012;43:1362-9.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.
Sainsbury A, Seebass G, Bansal A, Young JB. Reliability of the barthel index when used with older people. Age Ageing 2005;34:228-32.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.
Ranhoff AH, Laake K. The barthel ADL index: Scoring by the physician from patient interview is not reliable. Age Ageing 1993;22:171-4.  Back to cited text no. 20
    
21.
Appelros P. Characteristics of the frenchay activities index one year after a stroke: A population-based study. Disabil Rehabil 2007;29:785-90.  Back to cited text no. 21
    
22.
Martin RL, Hutt DM, Wukich DK. Validity of the Foot and ankle ability measure (FAAM) in diabetes mellitus. Foot Ankle Int 2009;30:297-302.  Back to cited text no. 22
    
23.
Kline P. Test construction: Factor analytic and item analytic methods. In: Kline P, editor. Handbook of Psychological Testing. 2nd ed. London, New York: Routledge; 2000. p. 161-81.  Back to cited text no. 23
    
24.
González N, Bilbao A, Forjaz MJ, Ayala A, Orive M, Garcia-Gutierrez S, et al. Psychometric characteristics of the Spanish version of the barthel index. Aging Clini Exp Res 2018;30:489-97.  Back to cited text no. 24
    
25.
Hobart J, Thompson A. The five item barthel index. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2001;71:225-30.  Back to cited text no. 25
    
26.
Duffy L, Gajree S, Langhorne P, Stott DJ, Quinn TJ. Reliability (inter-rater agreement) of the barthel index for assessment of stroke survivors: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Stroke 2013;44:462-8.  Back to cited text no. 26
    
27.
Post MW, van Asbeck FW, van Dijk AJ, Schrijvers AJ. Dutch interview version of the barthel index evaluated in patients with spinal cord injuries. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd 1995;139:1376-80. Nederlandse interviewversie van de Barthel-index onderzocht bij dwarslaesiepatienten. [In Dutch].  Back to cited text no. 27
    
28.
Caneda MA, Fernandes JG, Almeida AG, Mugnol FE. Confiabilidade de escalas de comprometimento neurológico em pacientes com acidente vascular cerebral. Arq Neuropsiquiatr 2006;64:690-7.  Back to cited text no. 28
    
29.
Hsueh IP, Lin JH, Jeng JS, Hsieh CL. Comparison of the psychometric characteristics of the functional independence measure, 5 item barthel index, and 10 item barthel index in patients with stroke. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2002;73:188-90.  Back to cited text no. 29
    
30.
Laake K, Laake P, Ranhoff AH, Sveen U, Wyller TB, Bautz-Holter E. The barthel ADL index: Factor structure depends upon the category of patient. Age Ageing 1995;24:393-7.  Back to cited text no. 30
    



 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3], [Table 4]



 

Top
 
 
  Search
 
Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
Access Statistics
Email Alert *
Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)

 
  In this article
Abstract
Introduction
Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusions
References
Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed174    
    Printed16    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded45    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal


[TAG2]
[TAG3]
[TAG4]