Physical Functional Assessment in Older Adults

Abstract

The evaluation of the physical domain represents a critical part of the assessment of the older person, both in the clinical as well as the research setting. To measure physical function, clinicians and researchers have traditionally relied on instruments focusing on the capacity of the individual to accomplish specific functional tasks (e.g., the Activities of Daily Living [ADL] or the Instrumental ADL scales). However, a growing number of physical performance and muscle strength tests has been developed in parallel over the past three decades. These measures are specifically designed to: 1) provide objective results (not surprisingly, they are frequently timed tests) taken in standardized conditions, whereas the traditional physical function scales are generally self- or proxy-reported measures; 2) be more sensitive to changes; 3) capture the real biology of the function through the assessment of standardized tasks mirroring specific functional subdomains; and 4) mirror the quality of specific mechanisms underlying more complex and multidomain functions. Among the most commonly used instruments, the usual gait speed test, the Short Physical Performance Battery, the handgrip strength, the Timed Up-and-Go test, the 6-minute walk test, and the 400-meter walk test are widely adopted by clinicians and researchers. The clinical and research importance of all these instruments has been demonstrated by their predictive capacity for negative health-related outcomes (i.e., hospitalization, falls, institutionalization, disability, mortality). Moreover, they have shown to be associated with subclinical and clinical conditions that are also not directly related to the physical domain (e.g., inflammation, oxidative stress, overall mortality). For this reason, they have been repeatedly indicated as markers of wellbeing linked to the burden of multiple chronic conditions rather than mere parameters of mobility or strength. In this work protocols of the main tests for the objective assessment of physical function in older adults are presented.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Figure 1
Figure 2

References

  1. 1.

    Katz S, Ford A, Moskowitz R, Jackson B, Jaffe M. Studies of Illness in the Aged: The Index of ADL: A Standardized Measure of Biological and Psychosocial Function. JAMA. 1963;185(12):914–919. doi:10.1001/jama.1963.03060120024016

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Lawton MP, Brody EM. Assessment of Older People: Self-Mantaining and Instrumental Activities of Daily Living. Gerontologist. 1969;9:179–186.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Ellis G, Gardner M, Tsiachrista A, et al. Comprehensive geriatric assessment for older adults admitted to hospital. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;(9). doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD006211.pub3.www.cochranelibrary.com

  4. 4.

    Lee H, Lee E, Jang IY. Frailty and comprehensive geriatric assessment. J Korean Med Sci. 2020;35(3):1–13. doi:https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2020.35.e16

    Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Morley J, Vellas B, Abellan van Kan G, et al. Frailty Consensus: A Call to Action. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2014;14(6):392–397. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamda.2013.03.022.Frailty

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Fried LP, Tangen CM, Walston J, et al. Frailty in Older Adults: Evidence for a Phenotype Linda. J Gerontol. 2001;56(3):M146–M157. doi:https://doi.org/10.1093/gerona/56.3.M146

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Cruz-Jentoft AJ, Bahat G, Bauer J, et al. Sarcopenia: Revised European consensus on definition and diagnosis. Age Ageing. 2019;48(1):16–31. doi:https://doi.org/10.1093/ageing/afy169

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Beaudart C, Rolland Y, Cruz-Jentoft AJ, et al. Assessment of Muscle Function and Physical Performance in Daily Clinical Practice: A position paper endorsed by the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases (ESCEO). Calcif Tissue Int. 2019;105(1):1–14. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s00223-019-00545-w

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Studenski S, Perera S, Wallace D, et al. Physical performance measures in the clinical setting. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2003;51(3):314–322. http://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&PAGE=reference&D=emed6&NEWS=N&AN=2003125471.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Cesari M, Kritchevsky SB, Newman AB, et al. Added value of physical performance measures in predicting adverse health-related events: Results from the health, aging and body composition study. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2009;57(2):251–259. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-5415.2008.02126.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Abellan Van Kan G, Rolland Y, Andrieu S, et al. Gait speed at usual pace as a predictor of adverse outcomes in community-dwelling older people an International Academy on Nutrition and Aging (IANA) task force. J Nutr Heal Aging. 2009;13(10):881–889. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s12603-009-0246-z

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Cesari M, Penninx BWJH, Pahor M, et al. Inflammatory Markers and Physical Performance in Older Persons: The InCHIANTI Study. J Gerontol Med Sci. 2004;59(3):242–248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Lee L, Fm M, Coe C, et al. Screening for frailty in primary care. Can Fam Physician. 2017;27(1):e51–e57.

    Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Mohile SG, Dale W, Somerfield MR, et al. Practical assessment and management of vulnerabilities in older patients receiving chemotherapy: Asco guideline for geriatric oncology. J Clin Oncol. 2018;36(22):2326–2347. doi:https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2018.78.8687

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Lilamand M, Dumonteil N, Nourhashémi F, et al. Gait speed and comprehensive geriatric assessment: Two keys to improve the management of older persons with aortic stenosis. Int J Cardiol. 2014;173(3):580–582. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcard.2014.03.112

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Prestmo A, Hagen G, Sletvold O, et al. Comprehensive geriatric care for patients with hip fractures: A prospective, randomised, controlled trial. Lancet. 2015;385(9978):1623–1633. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(14)62409-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Roberts HC, Denison HJ, Martin HJ, et al. A review of the measurement of grip strength in clinical and epidemiological studies: Towards a standardised approach. Age Ageing. 2011;40(4):423–429. doi:10.1093/ageing/afr051

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Cesari M, Kritchevsky SB, Penninx BWHJ, et al. Prognostic value of usual gait speed in well-functioning older people — Results from the health, aging and body composition study. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2005;53(10):1675–1680. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-5415.2005.53501.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Simonsick EM, Montgomery PS, Newman AB, Bauer DC, Harris T. Measuring fitness in healthy older adults: The health ABC long distance corridor walk. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2001;49(11):1544–1548. doi:https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1532-5415.2001.4911247.x

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Guralnik JM, Simonsick EM, Ferrucci L, et al. A Short Physical Performance Battery assessing lower extremity function. J Gerontol. 1994;49(2):M85–M94.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Podsiadlo, D; Richardson S. The timed “up & go”: A test of basic functional mobility for frail elderly persons. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1991;39(2):142–148.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Stessman J, Rottenberg Y, Fischer M, Hammerman-rozenberg A, Jacobs JM. Handgrip Strength in Old and Very Old Adults: Mood, Cognition, Function, and Mortality. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2017;(65):526–532. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/jgs.14509

  23. 23.

    Alley DE, Shardell MD, Peters KW, et al. Grip Strength Cutpoints for the Identification of Clinically Relevant Weakness. Journals Gerontol Med Sci. 2014;69(5):559–566. doi:https://doi.org/10.1093/gerona/glu011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Leong DP, Teo KK, Rangarajan S, et al. Prognostic value of grip strength: Findings from the Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology (PURE) study. Lancet. 2015;386(9990):266–273. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(14)62000-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Giampaoli S, Ferrucci L, Cecchi F, et al. Hand-grip strength predicts incident disability in non-disabled older men. Age Ageing. 1999;28(1):283–288.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Rantanen T, Guralnik JM, Foley D, et al. Midlife Hand Grip Strength as a Predictor of Old Age Disability. JAMA. 1999;281(6):558–560.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Dodds RM, Syddall HE, Cooper R, et al. Grip Strength across the Life Course: Normative Data from Twelve British Studies. PLoS One. 2014:1–15. doi:https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0113637

  28. 28.

    Woo J, Suzanne CHO, Yu ALM. Dependency, Mortality, and Institutionalization in Chinese Aged 70 And Older. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1999;47:1257–1260.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Studenski S, Perera S, Patel K, et al. Gait Speed and Survival in Older Adults. JAMA. 2011;305(1):50–58.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Clegg A, Rogers L, Young J. Diagnostic test accuracy of simple instruments for identifying frailty in community-dwelling older people: a systematic review. Age Ageing. 2015;44(1):148–152. doi:https://doi.org/10.1093/ageing/afu157

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Perera S, Mody SH, Woodman RC, Studenski SA. Meaningful change and responsiveness in common physical performance measures in older adults. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2006;54(5):743–749. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-5415.2006.00701.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Vestergaard S, Patel K V., Bandinelli S, Ferrucci L, Guralnik JM. Characteristics of 400-meter walk test performance and subsequent mortality in older adults. Rejuvenation Res. 2009;12(3):177–184. doi:https://doi.org/10.1089/rej.2009.0853

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Vestergaard S, Patel K V, Walkup MP, et al. Stopping to Rest during a 400-meter Walk and Incident Mobility Disability in Older Persons with Functional Limitations. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2010;57(2):260–265. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-5415.2008.02097.x.Stopping

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Peel NM, Kuys SS, Klein K. Gait speed as a measure in geriatric assessment in clinical settings: A systematic review. Journals Gerontol — Ser A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2013;68(1):39–46. doi:https://doi.org/10.1093/gerona/gls174

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Rolland YM, Cesari M, Miller ME, Penninx BW, Atkinson HH, Pahor M. Reliability of the 400-M usual-pace walk test as as assessment of mobility limitation in older adults. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2004;52(6):972–976. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-5415.2004.52267.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

None.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Enrica Patrizio.

Additional information

Conflcit of interest

The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Patrizio, E., Calvani, R., Marzetti, E. et al. Physical Functional Assessment in Older Adults. J Frailty Aging 10, 141–149 (2021). https://doi.org/10.14283/jfa.2020.61

Download citation

Key words

  • Physical function
  • physical performance
  • gait speed
  • muscular strength
  • comprehensive geriatric assessment
  • older adults