Abstract
BACKGROUND:
It is important to assess activities of daily living (ADL) in older adults due to impairment of independence and quality of life. However, there is no objective and standardized protocol available to assess this outcome. Thus, the aim of this study was to verify the reproducibility and validity of a new protocol for ADL assessment applied in physically independent adults age ≥50 y, the Londrina ADL protocol, and to establish an equation to predict reference values of the Londrina ADL protocol.
METHODS:
Ninety-three physically independent adults age ≥50 y had their performance in ADL evaluated by registering the time spent to conclude the protocol. The protocol was performed twice. The 6-min walk test, which assesses functional exercise capacity, was used as a validation criterion. A multiple linear regression model was applied, including anthropometric and demographic variables that correlated with the protocol, to establish an equation to predict the protocol's reference values.
RESULTS:
In general, the protocol was reproducible (intraclass correlation coefficient 0.91). The average difference between the first and second protocol was 5.3%. The new protocol was valid to assess ADL performance in the studied subjects, presenting a moderate correlation with the 6-min walk test (r = −0.53). The time spent to perform the protocol correlated significantly with age (r = 0.45) but neither with weight (r = −0.17) nor with height (r = −0.17). A model of stepwise multiple regression including sex and age showed that age was the only determinant factor to the Londrina ADL protocol, explaining 21% (P < .001) of its variability. The derived reference equation was: Londrina ADL protocolpred (s) = 135.618 + (3.102 × age [y]).
CONCLUSIONS:
The Londrina ADL protocol was reproducible and valid in physically independent adults age ≥50 y. A reference equation for the protocol was established including only age as an independent variable (r2 = 0.21), allowing a better interpretation of the protocol's results in clinical practice.
Keywords
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.