Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 10, 2025
Measuring Frailty in HIV-infected Individuals. Identification of Frail Patients is the First Step to Amelioration and Reversal of Frailty
Published on: July 24, 2013
Using item response theory to estimate interpretation threshold values for the Frailty Index in community dwelling
Yong-Hao Pua1, Berend Terluin2, Laura Tay3
1Department of Physiotherapy, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore; Medicine Academic Programme, Duke-NUS Graduate Medical School, Singapore.
Background:
Although the frailty index (FI) is designed as a continuous measure of frailty, thresholds are often needed to guide its interpretation. This study aimed to introduce and demonstrate the utility of an item response theory (IRT) method in estimating FI interpretation thresholds in community-dwelling adults and to compare them with cutoffs estimated using the receiver operating characteristics (ROC) method.
Methods:
A sample of 1,149 community-dwelling adults (mean[SD], 68[7] years) participated in this cross-sectional study. Participants completed a multi-domain geriatric screen from which the 40-item FI and 3 clinical anchors were computed - namely, (i)self-reported mobility limitations (SRML), (ii)"fair" or "poor" self-rated health (SRH), and (iii) restricted life-space mobility (RLSM). Participants were classified as having SRML-1 if they responded "Yes" to either of the 2 questions regarding walking and stair climbing difficulty and SRML-2 if they reported having walking and stair climbing difficulty. Participants with a Life Space Assessment score <60 points were classified as having RLSM. Threshold values for all anchor questions were estimated using the IRT method and ROC analysis with Youden criterion.
Results:
The proportions of participants with SRML-1, SRML-2, Fair/Poor SRH, and RLSM were 21 %, 8 %, 22 %, and 9 %, respectively. The IRT-based thresholds for SRML-2 (0.26), fair/poor SRH (0.29), and RLSM (0.32) were significantly higher than those for SRML-1 (0.18). ROC-based FI cutoffs were significantly lower than IRT-based values for SRML-2, SRH, and RLSM (0.12 to 0.17), and they varied minimally and non-systematically across the anchors.
Conclusions:
The IRT method identifies biologically plausible FI thresholds that could meaningfully complement and contextualize existing thresholds for defining frailty.
