Background: For investigating the relationship of frailty with physical, psychological, and social conditions on pathways, the frailty definition should ideally exclude these conditions. Based on the frailty phenotype, 2 candidate physical frailty specifications or instruments with 3 indicators, namely slowness, weakness, and exhaustion, and 4 indicators with addition of weight loss were previously developed, and had their construct and concurrent validity demonstrated. Objective: This study seeks to evaluate the predictive validity of 2 candidate physical frailty specifications with respect to death, functional impairment, and poor quality of life in older people. Methods: For 4,368 respondents aged 65-89 years from wave 2 of the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing, confirmatory factor analysis is performed for these 2 physical frailty specifications to obtain unique factor scores for each respondent. Prediction of death, basic and instrumental activities of daily living (BADL and IADL) difficulty, and poor quality of life (reverse of Control, Autonomy, Self-realization, and Pleasure [19 items] or CASP-19) 2 years later by factor scores for these 2 specifications is evaluated using standardized coefficients, c-statistics, and r2 values from regression analyses. Their performance is compared with those of alternative specifications with 3 (slowness, weakness, and weight loss) and 5 indicators (slowness, weakness, exhaustion, weight loss, and low physical activity), and Frailty Index (FI). Results: For the 2 candidate specifications, an increase of 1 standard deviation (SD) predicts 50-57% increase in odds of death, 0.10-15 SD increase in change in BADL or IADL difficulty, and poor quality of life at 2 years. They predict these outcomes as well or better than the alternative specification with 3 indicators, but marginally worse than that with 5 indicators. Compared with FI, they predict death and poor quality of life similarly, but perform worse for functional impairment. Minor differences are observed across gender. Conclusion: Reasonable predictive validity of 2 candidate physical frailty specifications based on the frailty phenotype with 3 and 4 indicators is demonstrated for death, functional impairment, and poor quality of life. These findings offer evidence to support their suitability for employment in investigating frailty pathways in older people.

Keywords:
Death, Functional impairment, Quality of life, Frailty phenotype, Frailty index, Predictive validity
1.
Morley JE, Vellas B, van Kan GA, Anker SD, Bauer JM, Bernabei R, et al: Frailty consensus: a call to action. J Am Med Dir Assoc 2013;14:392-397.
2.
Sternberg SA, Schwartz AW, Karunananthan S, Bergman H, Clarfield AM: The identification of frailty: a systematic literature review. J Am Geriatr Soc 2011;59:2129-2138.
3.
Martin FC, Brighton P: Frailty: different tools for different purposes? Age Ageing 2008;37:129-131.
4.
Bergman H, Wolfson C, Hogan D, Béland F, Karunananthan S, for the Investigator Group: Developing a working framework for understanding frailty. 2004. http://www.frail-fragile.ca/docs/WorkingFramework_June2004.pdf.
5.
Gobbens RJ, Luijkx KG, Wijnen-Sponselee MT, Schols JM: Towards an integral conceptual model of frailty. J Nutr Health Aging 2010;14:175-181.
6.
Gobbens RJ, van Assen MA, Luijkx KG, Wijnen-Sponselee MT, Schols JM: The Tilburg Frailty Indicator: psychometric properties. J Am Med Dir Assoc 2010;11:344-355.
7.
Fried LP, Tangen CM, Walston J, Newman AB, Hirsch C, Gottdiener J, et al: Frailty in older adults: evidence for a phenotype. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 2001;56:M146-M156.
8.
Buta BJ, Walston JD, Godino JG, Park M, Kalyani RR, Xue QL, et al: Frailty assessment instruments: systematic characterization of the uses and contexts of highly-cited instruments. Ageing Res Rev 2016;26:53-61.
9.
Rolland Y, Czerwinski S, Abellan Van Kan G, Morley JE, Cesari M, Onder G, et al: Sarcopenia: its assessment, etiology, pathogenesis, consequences and future perspectives. J Nutr Health Aging 2008;12:433-450.
10.
Mijnarends DM, Schols JMGA, Meijers JMM, Tan FES, Verlaan S, Luiking YC, et al: Instruments to assess sarcopenia and physical frailty in older people living in a community (care) setting: similarities and discrepancies. J Am Med Dir Assoc 2015;16:301-308.
11.
Landi F, Calvani R, Cesari M, Tosato M, Martone AM, Bernabei R, et al: Sarcopenia as the biological substrate of physical frailty. Clin Geriatr Med 2015;31:367-374.
12.
Xue QL, Bandeen-Roche K, Varadhan R, Zhou J, Fried LP: Initial manifestations of frailty criteria and the development of frailty phenotype in the Women's Health and Aging Study II. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 2008;63:984-990.
13.
Buchman AS, Leurgans SE, Boyle PA, Schneider JA, Arnold SE, Bennett DA: Combinations of motor measures more strongly predict adverse health outcomes in old age: the rush memory and aging project, a community-based cohort study. BMC Med 2011;9:42.
14.
Buchman AS, Wilson RS, Bienias JL, Bennett DA: Change in frailty and risk of death in older persons. Exp Aging Res 2009;35:61-82.
15.
Landi F, Abbatecola AM, Provinciali M, Corsonello A, Bustacchini S, Manigrasso L, et al: Moving against frailty: does physical activity matter? Biogerontology 2010;11:537-545.
16.
Ding YY: Developing physical frailty specifications for investigation of frailty pathways in older people. Age 2016;38:47.
17.
Rockwood K, Mitnitski A: Frailty in relation to the accumulation of deficits. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 2007;62:722-727.
18.
Steptoe A, Breeze E, Banks J, Nazroo J: Cohort profile: the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing. Int J Epidemiol 2013;42:1640-1648.
19.
Marmot M, Oldfield Z, Clemens S, Blake M, Phelps A, Nazroo J, et al: English Longitudinal Study of Ageing: Waves 0-6, 1998-2013, ed 23. Essex, UK Data Service, 2015.
20.
Saum KU, Muller H, Stegmaier C, Hauer K, Raum E, Brenner H: Development and evaluation of a modification of the Fried frailty criteria using population-independent cutpoints. J Am Geriatr Soc 2012;60:2110-2115.
21.
Radloff LS: The CES-D Scale. A self-report depression scale for research in the general population. Appl Psychol Meas 1977;1:385-401.
22.
Searle SD, Mitnitski A, Gahbauer EA, Gill TM, Rockwood K: A standard procedure for creating a frailty index. BMC Geriatr 2008;8:24.
23.
Song X, Mitnitski A, Rockwood K: Prevalence and 10-year outcomes of frailty in older adults in relation to deficit accumulation. J Am Geriatr Soc 2010;58:681-687.
24.
Howel D: Interpreting and evaluating the CASP-19 quality of life measure in older people. Age Ageing 2012;41:612-617.
25.
Muthén LK, Muthén BO: Mplus User's Guide, ed 7. Los Angeles, Muthén & Muthén, 1998-2012.
26.
Cook NR: Use and misuse of the receiver operating characteristic curve in risk prediction. Circulation 2007;115:928-935.
27.
Stessman J, Hammerman-Rozenberg R, Cohen A, Ein-Mor E, Jacobs JM: Physical activity, function, and longevity among the very old. Arch Intern Med 2009;169:1476-1483.
28.
McPhee JS, French DP, Jackson D, Nazroo J, Pendleton N, Degens H: Physical activity in older age: perspectives for healthy ageing and frailty. Biogerontology 2016;17:567-580.
29.
Nazroo J, Zaninotto P, Gjonca E: Mortality and healthy life expectancy; in Banks J, Breeze E, Lessof C, Nazroo J (eds): Living in the 21st Century: Older People in England. The 2006 English Longitudinal Study of Ageing (Wave 3). London, Institute for Fiscal Studies, 2008, pp 253-280.
30.
Gobbens RJ, van Assen MA, Luijkx KG, Schols JM: The predictive validity of the Tilburg Frailty Indicator: disability, health care utilization, and quality of life in a population at risk. Gerontologist 2012;52:619-631.
31.
Xue QL, Tian J, Fried LP, Kalyani RR, Varadhan R, Walston JD, et al: Physical frailty assessment in older women: can simplification be achieved without loss of syndrome measurement validity? Am J Epidemiol 2016;183:1037-1044.
© 2017 S. Karger AG, Basel
2017
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
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.
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 government 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.
You do not currently have access to this content.