Aging Clinical and Experimental Research

, Volume 17, Issue 3, pp 193–200 | Cite as

Evaluation of continuous summary physical performance scores (CSPPS) in an elderly cohort

  • Jeri W. Nieves
  • Marsha Zion
  • Marco Pahor
  • Roberto Bernabei
  • Jacobijn Gussekloo
  • Henry Simon
  • Jong-Soon Park
  • Tracy Li
  • Pablo Lapuerta
  • G. Rhys Williams
Original Articles


Background and aims: Physical performance is an important predictor of quality of life among the elderly. A valid and sensitive measure of physical performance is needed in order to evaluate possible interventions. The aim of this study was to examine the validity and reliability of the Continuous Summary Physical Performance Score (CSPPS) and its relationship to the Quartile Summary Physical Performance Score (QSPPS). Methods: This cross-sectional study of an elderly cohort from 5 centers in the US and Europe included men and women (>age 65) reporting at least two domains of disability. Subjects completed assessments of mobility and ability to perform activities of daily living (ADLs), the physical component of the SF-36, and a self-rating of physical performance. Timed physical performance tests were used to calculate the CSPPS and QSPPS. Results: 216 subjects took part (mean age=81 years). The distribution of CSPPS scores was similar for men and women, with a mean of 59.2 (SD 17.8), median of 64.3, and range from 1.3 to 91. Subjects with older age, higher degree of disability, and lower self-rated physical performance had lower CSPPS scores. The CSPPS had good test-retest reliability (r=0.92), and CSPPS and QSPPS are highly correlated (r=0.94, p<0.001). However, the QSPPS appears to lack the linearity, and the ranges of the CSPPS for each score of the QSPPS overlap substantially. Conclusions: In a cohort with moderate to severe disability, the CSPPS appears to be a valid, reproducible measure that can discriminate smaller yet clinically meaningful differences in physical function, as compared with the QSPPS.


Physical performance test summary scores reliability validity 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Guralnik JM, Simonsick EM, Ferrucci L, et al. A short physical performance battery assessing lower extremity function: association with self-reported disability and prediction of mortality and nursing home admission. J Gerontol 1994; 49: 85–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Penninx BW, Ferrucci L, Leveille SG, et al. Lower extremity performance in nondisabled older persons as a predictor of subsequent hospitalization. J Gerontol 2000; 55A: M691–7.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Guralnik JM, Ferrucci L, Pieper CF, et al. Lower extremity function and subsequent disability: consistency across studies, predictive models, and value of gait speed alone compared with the short physical performance battery. J Gerontol 2000; 55: M221–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Guralnik JM, Ferrucci L, Simonsick EM, et al. Lower extremity performance in persons over the age of 70 years as a predictor of subsequent disability. N. Engl J Med 1995; 332: 556–61.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Studenski S, Perera S, Wallace D, et al. Physical performance measures in the clinical setting. J Am Geriatr Soc 2003; 51: 314–22.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Simonsick EM, Kasper JD, Guralnik JM, et al. Severity of upper and lower extremity functional limitation: development and validation with self-report and performance based measures of physical function. WHAS Research Group. The Woman’s Health and Aging Study. J Gerontol 2001; 56: S10–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Scott WK, Macera CA, Cornman CB, et al. Functional health status as a predictor of mortality in men and women over 65. J Clin Epidemiol 1997; 50: 291–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ferrucci L, Pennix BW, Leveille SG, et al. Characteristics of nondisabled older persons who performed poorly in objective tests of lower extremity function. J Am Geriatr Soc 2000; 48: 1102–10.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Guralnik JM, Seeman TE, Tinetti ME, et al. Validation and use of performance measures of functioning in a non-disabled older population: MacArthur Studies of Successful Aging. Aging Clin Exp Res 1994; 6: 410–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Reuben DB, Siu AL. An objective measure of physical function of elderly outpatients: the physical performance test. J Am Geriatr Soc 1990; 38: 1105–12.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Daltroy LH, Phillips CB, Eaton HM. Objectively measuring physical ability in elderly persons: the physical capacity evaluation. Am J Public Health 1995; 85: 558–60.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hoeymans N, Feskens EJ, van den Bos GA, et al. Measuring functional status: cross-sectional and longitudinal associations between performance and self-report. J Clin Epidemiol 1996; 49: 1103–10.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Simonsick EM, Newman AB, Nevitt MC, et al. Measuring higher level physical function in well functioning older adults: expanding familiar approaches in the Health ABC Study. J Gerontol 2001; 56: M644–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cress ME, Buchner DM, Questad KA, et al. Continuous scale physical functional performance in healthy older adults: a validation study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1996; 77: 1243–50.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cress ME, Schechtman KB, Mulrow CD, et al. Relationship between physical performance and self-perceived physical function. J Am Geriatr Soc 1995; 43: 93–101.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ostir GV, Markides KS, Black SA, et al. Lower body functioning as a predictor of subsequent disability among older Mexican Americans. J Gerontol 1998; 53: M491–5.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ostir GV, Volpato S, Fried LP, et al. Reliability and sensitivity to change assessed for a summary measure of lower body function: results from the Women’s Health and Aging Study. J Clin Epidemiol 2002: 55; 916–21.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Nelson ME, Layne JE, Bernstein MJ, et al. The effects of multidimensional home-based exercise on functional performance in elderly people. J Gerontol 2004; 59: 154–60.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Onder G, Penninx B, Lapuerta P, et al. Change in physical performance over time in older women: the Women’s Health and Aging Study. J Gerontol 2002; 57: M289–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Folstein MF, Folstein SE, McHugh PR. “Mini-Mental State”: a practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. J Psychiatry Res 1975; 12: 189–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Guyatt GH, Sullivan MJ, Thompson PJ, et al. The 6 minute walk: a new measure of exercise capacity in patients with chronic heart failure. Can Med Assoc J 1985; 132: 919–23.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hachisuka K, Ogata H, Ohkuma H. Test-retest and inter-method reliability of the self-rating Barthel Index. Clin Rehabil 1997; 11: 2835.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Stewart AL, Hays RD, Ware JD. The MOS short form general health survey. Med Care 1988; 26: 724–35.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ware JF, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36 item short form health survey: conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care 1992; 30: 473–83.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Fried LP, Kasper JD, Guralnik JM, et al. The Women’s Health and Aging Study. An introduction. Bethesda, National Institute on Aging. NIH publication No. 95-4009, 1995.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ferrucci L, Guralnik JM, Buchner D, et al. Departures from linearity in the relationship between measures of muscular strength and physical performance of the lower extremities: the Woman’s Health and Aging Study. J. Gerontol 1997; 52: M275–85.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Inouye SK, Paduzzi PN, Robison JT, et al. Importance of functional measures in predicting mortality among older hospitalized patients. JAMA 1998; 279: 1187–93.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Seeman TE, Charpentier PA, Berkman LF. Predicting changes in physical performance in a high-functioning elderly cohort: MacArthur Studies of Successful Aging. J Gerontol 1994; 49: M97–108.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ferrucci l, Guralnik JM, Studenski S, Fried LP, Cutler GB, Walston JD. Designing randomized, controlled trials aimed at preventing or delaying functional decline and disability in frail older persons: a consensus report. J Am Geriatr Soc 2004; 52: 625–34.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Vellas BJ, Wayne SJ, Romero L, et al. One leg balance is an important predictor of injurious falls in older persons. J Am Geriatr Soc 1997; 45: 735–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Internal Publishing Switzerland 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jeri W. Nieves
    • 1
  • Marsha Zion
    • 1
  • Marco Pahor
    • 2
  • Roberto Bernabei
    • 4
  • Jacobijn Gussekloo
    • 5
  • Henry Simon
    • 6
  • Jong-Soon Park
    • 3
  • Tracy Li
    • 3
  • Pablo Lapuerta
    • 3
  • G. Rhys Williams
    • 3
  1. 1.Clinical Research Center, Helen Hayes HospitalWest HaverstrawUSA
  2. 2.Sticht Center on Aging, Wake Forest University School of MedicineWinston SalemUSA
  3. 3.Bristol-Myers SquibbPrincetonUSA
  4. 4.Catholic University of ItalyItaly
  5. 5.Leiden University of the NetherlandsNetherlands
  6. 6.Physicians Research CenterToms RiverUSA

Personalised recommendations