Étude de fiabilité de la version française du MFAQ (santé physique)
- 1 January 1995
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Cambridge University Press (CUP) in Canadian Journal on Aging / La Revue canadienne du vieillissement
- Vol. 14 (3) , 525-535
- https://doi.org/10.1017/s0714980800009090
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to estimate the reliability of the French version of the M.F.A.Q. method, a tool used to measure the physical health of the elderly. During the survey, four interviewers assessed 15 subjects each by using the M.F.A.Q. Following this, all 60 participants were evaluated two months later, this time without the subjects being present. In addition, a geriatric specialist also assessed the 60 questionnaires a posteriori. The results show an intra-rater reliability (a 96% performance rate within a 1-point difference on a scale of 6) and an inter-rater reliability (Kappas, on a scale from good to moderate; alpha of Cronbach = 0.93) which were acceptable. An analysis of the covariance reveals that age does not figure in the judgments. The authors express certain reservations, but conclude that this instrument of measurement is flexible, easy to administer, in addition to its metrological properties being satisfactory.Keywords
This publication has 7 references indexed in Scilit:
- Multidimensional Functional Assessment in Two ModesThe Gerontologist, 1985
- OARS MethodologyJournal of the American Geriatrics Society, 1985
- An Assessment Tool for Use in IdentifyingFunctionally Vulnerable Persons in the CommunityThe Gerontologist, 1984
- The Development, Validity, and Reliability of the Oars Multidimensional Functional Assessment QuestionnaireJournal of Gerontology, 1981
- Level of Functioning, Clinical Judgment, and Mental Health Service EvaluationEvaluation & the Health Professions, 1978
- The Comprehensive Assessment and Referral Evaluation (Care)—Rationale, Development and ReliabilityInternational Journal of Aging & Human Development, 1978
- Weighted kappa: Nominal scale agreement provision for scaled disagreement or partial credit.Psychological Bulletin, 1968