Psychometric properties of the Persian version of the Edmonton Frail Scale
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Due to the need for a validated and relevant scale for assessing frailty, we aimed to translate and adapt a specific tool, ‘Edmonton Frail Scale’ (EFS), into the Persian language and evaluate its psychometric properties. In this methodological and cross-sectional study, we recruited 347 older adults in Naqadeh, Iran. Next, by using the Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA), we examined the construct validity of the p-EFS. The internal consistency/reliability was estimated by computing Cronbach’s coefficient alpha. The Exploratory factor analysis revealed a three-factor model that included 11 items and accounted for 49.00% of the variance. Additionally, the construct validity of this three-factor model was supported by the results of the confirmatory factor analysis. The remerged factors were 1) functional, physiological, and cognition status, 2) medication, nutrition status, and social support, and 3) general health status. The Iranian version of EFS is a valid and reliable scale that we suggest for specialists, physicians, and health workers to measure frailty.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".