BACKGROUND Many instruments to identify frail older people have been developed. One of the consequences is that the prevalence rates of frailty vary widely dependent on the instrument selected. The aims of this study were 1) to examine the concordances and differences between a unidimensional and multidimensional assessment of frailty, 2) to assess to what extent the characteristics of a 'frail sample' differ depending on the selected frailty measurement because 'being frail' is used in many studies as an inclusion criterion. METHOD A cross-sectional study was conducted among 196 community-dwelling older adults (≥60 years), which were selected from the census records. Unidimensional frailty was operationalized according to the Fried Phenotype (FP) and multidimensional frailty was measured with the Comprehensive Frailty Assessment Instrument (CFAI). The concordances and differences were examined by prevalence, correlations, observed agreement and Kappa values. Differences between sample characteristics (e.g., age, physical activity, life satisfaction) were investigated with ANOVA and Kruskall-Wallis test. RESULTS The mean age was 72.74 (SD 8.04) and 48.98% was male. According to the FP 23.59% was not-frail, 56.92% pre-frail and 19.49% frail. According to the CFAI, 44.33% was no-to-low frail, 37.63% was mild frail and 18.04% was high frail. The correlation between FP and the CFAI was r = 0.46 and the observed agreement was 52.85%. The Kappa value was κ = 0.35 (quadratic κ = 0.45). In total, 11.92% of the participants were frail according to both measurements, 7.77% was solely frail according to the FP and 6.21% was solely frail according to the CFAI. The 'frail sample respondents' according to the FP had higher levels of life satisfaction and net income, but performed less physical activities in comparison to high frail people according to the CFAI. CONCLUSION The present study shows that the FP and CFAI partly measure the same 'frailty-construct', although differences were found for instance in the prevalence of frailty and the composition of the 'frail participants'. Since 'being frail' is an inclusion criterion in many studies, researchers must be aware that the choice of the frailty measurement has an impact on both the estimates of frailty prevalence and the characteristics of the selected sample.

中文翻译：

---

一维和多维脆弱性评估之间的一致性和差异：一项横断面研究。

背景技术已经开发出许多识别脆弱的老年人的工具。结果之一是，脆弱性的患病率在很大程度上取决于所选择的工具。这项研究的目的是：1）研究脆弱性的一维和多维评估之间的一致性和差异，2）评估“脆弱样本”的特征在多大程度上取决于所选的脆弱性度量，因为“脆弱”是在许多研究中被用作纳入标准。方法对来自普查记录中的196名居住在社区中的60岁以上的老年人进行了横断面研究。一维脆弱性是根据油炸表型（FP）进行操作的，而多维脆弱性是使用综合脆弱性评估工具（CFAI）进行测量的。通过患病率，相关性，观察到的一致性和Kappa值检查一致性和差异。使用方差分析和Kruskall-Wallis检验研究了样本特征（例如年龄，身体活动，生活满意度）之间的差异。结果平均年龄为72.74（SD 8.04），男性为48.98％。据法新社报道，不脆弱的人占23.59％，前脆弱的人占56.92％，虚弱的人占19.49％。根据CFAI的数据，有44.33％的人是弱到弱，轻度的人是37.63％，高的人是18.04％。FP和CFAI之间的相关性为r = 0.46，观察到的一致性为52.85％。Kappa值为κ= 0.35（二次κ= 0.45）。总计11。根据两种测量，92％的参与者脆弱，根据FP仅有7.77％脆弱，而CFAI认为只有6.21％脆弱。联邦调查局的数据显示，“脆弱样本受访者”的生活满意度和净收入水平较高，但与体弱多病的人相比，他们从事的体育锻炼较少。结论本研究表明，FP和CFAI部分衡量了相同的“脆弱构造”，尽管在例如脆弱程度和“脆弱参与者”的构成方面存在差异。由于“脆弱”是许多研究的纳入标准，因此研究人员必须意识到，脆弱性度量的选择对脆弱性患病率的估计和所选样本的特征都有影响。