Deepening the understanding of the structural validity of the Tilburg Frailty Indicator
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Psychometric properties of the Tilburg Frailty Indicator (TFI) have shown low internal consistency for psychological and social domains, and evidence for its structure validity is controversial. Moreover, research on TFI is frequently limited to community dwellings. AIMS: To evaluate structural validity, reliability, and convergent and divergent validity of the Spanish version of the Tilburg Frailty Indicator (TFI) in both community-dwelling and institutionalized older people. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted on Spanish older adults (n = 457) recruited from both community settings (n = 322) and nursing homes (n = 135). Participants completed the TFI and other frailty instruments: Fried's Frailty Phenotype, Edmonton Frailty Scale, FRAIL Scale, and Kihon Checklist (KCL). Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA), and reliability and validity coefficients were estimated. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Some items from physical and social domains showed low factor loadings (< 0.40). The three-factor CFA model showed better fit indices after depurating these items. Reliability estimates were good (CRI ≥ 0.70) for physical and psychological domains in the institutionalized sample, while in the community dwellings, only physical domain reliability was adequate. Convergent and divergent validity of physical and psychological domains was good, except for some alternative psychological measures highly correlating with the TFI physical component (KCL-depressive mood and Edmonton mood). However, the social domain showed low correlations with some social indicators. CONCLUSION: The findings of this study clarify some of the controversial validation results of the TFI structure and provide evidence to improve its use in psychometric terms. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03832608.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".