Cultural adaptation and validation of the Polish version of the physical activity scale for older people living in a community: a cross-sectional study

Abstract

Background Polish clinicians and researchers face challenges in selecting physical activity tools appropriate and validated for older people. The aim of this study is to provide cultural adaptation and validation of the Polish version of the Physical Activity Scale for Elderly (PASE-P). Methods This cross-sectional study was carried out among 115 older adults living in south-eastern Poland. The original version of the scale has been translated into the Polish language following standardized translation procedures. Validation was evaluated by Pearson’s rank correlation coefficients between PASE-P, the normal Timed Up and Go test and that with a cognitive task (TUG and TUG cog, respectively), grip strength, basic and instrumental activities of daily living (ADL and IADL, respectively), Five Times Sit to Stand (5x STS), 10-m Walk Test (10MWT), the Berg Balance Scale (BBS) and the International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ). Results The mean PASE-P was 91.54 (SD 71.15). Sufficient reliability of the test-retest of the PASE-P questionnaire components was found between the trials. The ICC test was strong and ranged from 0.988 to 0.778 for both major domains and the total scale score. A significant correlation was found between the total PASE-P score and the shorter TUG, TUG cog (r = − 0.514, p < 0.001; r = − 0.481, p < 0.001) and 10MWT (r = 0.472, p < 0.001). The total PASE-P score was also positively correlated with ADL and IADL (r = 0.337, p < 0.001; r = 0.415 p < 0.001), BBS (r = 0.537, p < 0.001) and 5xSTS (r = 0.558, p < 0.001). Conclusions The results obtained in the study confirm that the Polish version of the PASE scale is a valid and reliable tool for assessing the level of physical activity in older adults living in a community.

Mapping the extent of the literature and psychometric properties for the Physical Activity Scale for the Elderly (PASE) in community-dwelling older adults: A scoping review

“…60,84 Sixteen studies reported on the test-retest reliability of the PASE, time frames ranging from 3 days 100, 106 to 3-7 weeks 13 and sample sizes ranging from 18 99 to 349 101 (details available in Table 3). Across all versions of the PASE 12 studies reporting ICCs for the total score, only two fell below acceptable limits proposed in the COSMIN guidelines 111 108 . Two studies also included standard errors of measurement for the PASE total score (Chinese version 6.93 63 and NR version 30.00 84 ).…”

“…Several papers evaluated the psychometric properties of the original PASE (n=5) along with a number of validation studies (n=14) for different translations and clinical populations (acute coronary event, 99 COPD 63 , Cancer 22,61 , and Parkinson's disease 84 ). In total, ten different versions of the PASE were assessed for reliability and/or validity in community-dwelling older adults, including: English (n=5), 13,14,61,99,100 Malay (n=2), 101,102 Arabic (n=1), 103 Chinese (n=2), 63,104 Italian (n=1), 105 Norwegian (n=1), 106 Persian (n=1), 107 Polish (n=1), 108 Taiwanese (n=2), 22,109 Turkish (n=1), 110 and two studies did not report the version. 60,84 Sixteen studies reported on the test-retest reliability of the PASE, time frames ranging from 3 days 100, 106 to 3-7 weeks 13 and sample sizes ranging from 18 99 to 349 101 (details available in Table 3).…”

“…61 Construct validity was the most commonly assessed form of validity, predominantly exploring convergent validity (details available in Table 4). Physical function performance measures and self-report questionnaires were commonly cited, and relationships ranged from fair to moderate, including the Timed Up and Go (r=-0.45 to r=-0.69), 103,107,108 Berg Balance (r=0.20 to r=0.82) 14,105,108 , and the physical function section of the Short Form-36 (r=0.53 to r=0.58). 63,104,110 Muscle strength was another common construct with poor to fair correlations; specifically, grip strength (r=0.29 to r=0.43), 13,63,101,103,104 and lower limb strength (r=0.18 to r=0.37 ).…”

Does cognitive function impairment affect the duration of hospitalization and in-hospital mortality in geriatric patients hospitalized for COVID-19?

“…The maximum number of points on this scale is 24, indicating proficiency in the performance of complex activities of daily living [ 19 ]. The IADL scale was validated in Polish [ 15 ].…”

“…The results are presented in the form of three ranges: full function (5–6 points), moderate impairment (3–4 points), and complete impairment (1–2 points) [ 20 ]. The Katz ADL scale was validated in Polish [ 15 ].…”