Journal Mobile Options
Table of Contents
Vol. 56, No. 5, 2010
Issue release date: August 2010

A Revised Activities of Daily Living/Instrumental Activities of Daily Living Instrument Increases Interpretive Power: Theoretical Application for Functional Tasks Exercise

Fieo R. · Watson R. · Deary I.J. · Starr J.M.
To view the fulltext, log in and/or choose pay-per-view option

Individual Users: Register with Karger Login Information

Please create your User ID & Password

Contact Information

I have read the Karger Terms and Conditions and agree.

To view the fulltext, please log in

To view the pdf, please log in


Background: As the number of adults in older age groups expands, difficulty performing usual activities of daily life is a rising health concern. A common exercise regimen employed to attenuate functional decline and disability has been resistance strength training. However, recent evidence suggests that functional tasks exercise may be more effective in preventing disability. Objective: Activities of Daily Living (ADL) measures are one of the most widely used tools in gerontology, and yet the full sensitivity of these instruments is often not realized. The purpose of this study is to enhance the interpretive power of ADL by formally confirming a hierarchy of decline, assessing discriminatory power, and examining option characteristic curves. Theoretically, a revised ADL instrument can improve the efficacy of functional tasks training programs. Methods: This was a cross-sectional study that employed Item Response Theory (IRT) to interpret ADL outcomes. Participants consisted of community-dwelling older adults (n = 548, aged 79) living in Scotland. Results: A Mokken scale with ρ = 0.77 was obtained, indicating good reliability, and satisfying the IRT assumption that a single unidimensional scale is present. The set H coefficient of 0.48 indicated that the scale may be ordered by decreasing difficulty, with the ‘Cut your own toe-nails?’ item being the most difficult and ‘Tie a good knot in a piece of string?’ being the least difficult. Discriminatory and option characteristic parameters revealed ‘Get on a bus?’ to be the task most closely related to the latent construct and that item options can be used to ascertain critical thresholds for prevention type strategies. Conclusions: Examining parameters relating to difficulty, discriminatory power, and option characteristics facilitated the identification of ADL/Instrumental ADL items that may serve to enhance functional task training in community-dwelling older adults. These analyses demonstrated that functional tasks have differing levels of discriminatory power, and that a task’s discriminatory power is likely to change with varying levels of disability. This observation reinforces the notion that exercises based on functional tasks may differ significantly in their therapeutic effect. Lastly, this study was able to highlight statistically meaningful cut-points relating to when older adults should begin ‘prehabilitation’ interventions.

Copyright / Drug Dosage

Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher or, in the case of photocopying, direct payment of a specified fee to the Copyright Clearance Center.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in goverment regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.


  1. Jagger C, Matthews R, Matthews F, Robinson T, Robine J, Brayne C: The burden of diseases on disability-free life expectancy in later life. J Gerontol Med Sci 2007;62:408–414.
  2. Fries JF: Measuring and monitoring success in compressing morbidity. Ann Intern Med 2003;139:455–459.
  3. Fries JF: Reducing disability in older age. JAMA 2002;288:3164–3166.
  4. Weiss C, Fried L, Brandeen-Roche K: Exploring the hierarchy of mobility performance in high-functioning older women. J Gerontol Med Sci 2007;62:167–173.
  5. Franco OH, Karnik K, Osborne G, Ordovas JM, Catt M, van der Ouderaa F: Changing course in ageing research: the healthy ageing phenotype. Maturitas 2009;63:13–19.
  6. Cress ME, Buchner DM, Questad KA, Esselman PC, deLateur BJ, Schwartz RS: Exercise: effects on physical functional performance in independent older adults. J Gerontol Med Sci 1999;54:242–248.
  7. Capodaglio P, Capodaglio EM, Facioli M, Saibene F: Long-term strength training for community-dwelling people over 75: impact on muscle function, functional ability and life style. Eur J Appl Physiol 2007;100:535–542.
  8. Topp R, Broadley D., Morgan AL, Fahlman M, McNevih N: Exercise and functional tasks among adults who are functionally limited. West J Nurs Res 2005;27:252–270.
  9. Lee U, Park K: Health practices that predict recovery from functional limitations in older adults. Am J Prev Med 2006;31:25–31.
  10. de Vreede PL: The effect of functional tasks exercise and resistance exercise on health-related quality of life and physical activity. Gerontology 2007;53:12–20.
  11. de Vreede PL, Samson MM, van Meeteren NL, Duursma SA, Verhaar HJ: Functional-task exercise versus resistance strength exercise to improve daily function in older women: a randomized, controlled trial. J Am Geriatr Soc 2005;53:2–10.
  12. Schmidt RA, Lee TD: Conditions of practice; in Schmidt RA, Lee TD (eds): Motor Control and Learning. A Behavioural Emphasis, ed 3. Champaign, Human Kinetics Publishers, 1999.
  13. Gill TM, Han L, Allore HG: Predisposing factors and precipitants for bathing disability in older persons. J Am Geriatr Soc 2007;55:534–540.
  14. Naik AD, Concato J, Gill TM: Bathing disability in community-living older persons: common, consequential, and complex. J Am Geriatr Soc 2004;52:1805–1810.
  15. Czaja SJ, Weber RA, Nair SN: A human factors analysis of ADL activities: a capability-demand approach. J Gerontology 1993;48(spec issue):44–48.

    External Resources

  16. Evans LK: The bath! Reassessing a familiar elixir in old age. J Am Geriatr Soc 2004;52:1957–1958.
  17. Latham N, Anderson C, Bennett D, Stretton C: Progressive resistance strength training for physical disability in older people. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2003, Issue 2. Art No CD002759. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002759.

    External Resources

  18. Spector WD, Fleishman JA, Pezzin LE, Spillman BC: The characteristics of long-term care users. AHRQ Publ No 00-0049. Rockville, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 2000.
  19. Hebert R, Brayne C, Spiegelhalter D: Incidence of functional decline and improvement in a community-dwelling very elderly population. Am J Epidemiol 1997;145:935–944.
  20. Wilms H, Riedel-Heller SG, Angermeyer MC: Limitations in activities of daily living and instrumental activities of daily living capacity in a representative sample: disentangling dementia- and mobility-related effects. Compr Psychiatry 2007;48:95–101.
  21. Deary I, Whiteman M, Starr J, et al: The impact of childhood intelligence on later life: following the Scottish mental surveys of 1932 and 1947. J Pers Soc Psychol 2004;86:130–147.
  22. Townsend P. The Last Refuge. London, Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1962.
  23. Reise S, Henson J: A discussion of modern versus traditional psychometrics as applied to personality assessment scales. J Pers Assess 2003;81:93–103.
  24. Gibbons RD, Clark DC, Cavanaugh SV, Davis JM: Application of modern psychometric theory in psychiatric research. J Psychiat Res 1985;19:43–55.
  25. Kempen GI, Suurmeijer TP: The development of a hierarchical polychotomus ADL-IADL Scale for noninstitutionalized elders. Gerontologist 1990;30:497–502.
  26. Thomas V, Rockwood K, McDowell I: Multidimensionality in instrumental and basic activities of daily living. J Clin Epidemiol 1998; 51:315–321.
  27. Molenaar I, Sijtsma K: MSP5 for Windows. Groningen, iec ProGAMMA, 2000.
  28. Van der Ark L: Mokken Scale Analysis in R. J Stat Softw 2007;20:731–737.
  29. Ramsay JO: Kernel-smoothing approaches to nonparametric item characteristic curve estimation. Psychometrika 1991;56:611–630.

    External Resources

  30. Ramsay JO: TestGraf: A program for the analysis of multiple choice test questionnaire data. Montreal, Department of Psychology, McGill University, 2000.
  31. De Jong A, Molenaar I: An application of Mokken’s model for stochastic, cumulative scaling in psychiatric research. J Psychiatr Res 1987;12:137–149.

    External Resources

  32. Sijtsma K: Introduction to Nonparametric Item Response Theory. Thousand Oaks, Sage, 2002, pp 7–8.
  33. Watson R, Deary I, Austin E: Are personality trait items reliably more or less ‘difficult’? Mokken scaling of the NEO-FFI. Pers Ind Diff 2007;43:1460–1469.

    External Resources

  34. Lord FM. Applications of Item Response Theory to Practical Testing Problems. Hillsdale, Erlbaum, 1980.
  35. Sachs J, Law Y, Chan, CK: A nonparametric item analysis of a selected item subset of the learning questionnaire. Br J Educ Psychol 2003;73:395–423.
  36. Santor DA, Ramsay JO: Progress in the technology of measurement: application of item response models. Psychol Assess 1998;10:345–359.

    External Resources

  37. Santor DA, Ramsay JO, Zuroff DC: Nonparametric item analysis of the Beck Depression Inventory: evaluating gender item bias and response option weights. Psychol Assess 1994;6:255–270.

    External Resources

  38. Moorer P, Suurmeijer T: A study of the unidimensionality and cumulativeness of the MOS short-form general health survey. Psychol Rep 1994;74:467–470.
  39. Embretson SE, Reise S: Item Response Theory for Psychologists. Mahwah, Erlbaum, 2000, pp 230–231.
  40. Kempen G, Myers A, Powell L: Hierarchical structures in ADL and IADL: analytical assumptions and applications for clinicians and researchers. J Clin Epidemiol 1995;48:1299–1305.
  41. Finlayson M, Mallinson T, Barbosa VM: Activities of daily living (ADL) and instrumental activities of daily living (IADL) items were stable over time in a longitudinal study on aging. J Clin Epidemiol 2005;58:338–349.
  42. Manini T, Marko M, VanArnam T, et al: Efficacy of resistance and task-specific exercise in older adults who modify tasks of everyday life. J Gerontol Med Sci 2007;62:616–623.
  43. Alexander NB, Galecki AT, Grenier ML, et al: Task-specific resistance training to improve the ability of activities of daily living-impaired older adults to rise from a bed and from chair. J Am Geriatr Soc 2001;49:1418–1427.
  44. Sijtsma K, Emos WH, Bouwmeester S, Nyklicek, I, Roorda LD: Nonparametric IRT analysis of quality-of-life scales and its application to the World Health Organization quality of life scale (WHOQOL-Bref). Qual Life Res 2008;17:275–290.
  45. Nandakumar R: Assessing dimensionality of a set of item responses – comparison of different approaches. J Educ Measure 1994;31:17–35.

    External Resources

  46. Magaziner J, Zimmerman SI, Gruber-Baldini AL, Hebel JR, Fox KM: Proxy reporting in five areas of functional status. Am J Epidemiol 1997;146:418–428.
  47. Reynolds SL, Silverstein M: Observing the onset of disability in older adults. Soc Sci Med 2003;57:1875–1889.

Pay-per-View Options
Direct payment This item at the regular price: USD 38.00
Payment from account With a Karger Pay-per-View account (down payment USD 150) you profit from a special rate for this and other single items.
This item at the discounted price: USD 26.50