OBJECTIVES: Patients with hip or knee osteoarthritis (OA) may experience functional limitations in work settings. In the Cohort Hip and Cohort Knee study (CHECK) physical function was both self-reported and measured performance-based, using Functional Capacity Evaluation (FCE). Relations between self-reported scores on SF-36 and WOMAC (Western Ontario and McMaster Arthritis Index, function scales) and FCE performance were studied, and their diagnostic value for clinicians in predicting observed physical work limitations was assessed.METHODS: Ninety-two subjects scored physical function on SF-36 (scale 0-100, 100 indicating the best health level) and WOMAC (scale 0-68, 68 indicates maximum restriction) and performed the FCE. Correlations were calculated between all scores. Cross-tables were constructed using both questionnaires as diagnostic tests to identify work limitations. Subjects lifting <22.5 kg on the FCE-test 'lifting-low' were labeled as having physical work limitations. Diagnostic aspects at different cut-off scores for both questionnaires were analysed.RESULTS: Statistically significant correlations (Spearman's rho 0.34-0.49) were found between questionnaire scores and lifting and carrying tests. Results of a diagnostic cross-table with cut-off point <60 on SF-36 'physical functioning' were: sensitivity 0.34, specificity 0.97 and positive predictive value (PV+) 0.95. Cut-off point > or =21 on WOMAC 'function' resulted in sensitivity 0.51, specificity 0.88 and PV+ 0.88.CONCLUSION: Low self-reported function scores on SF-36 and WOMAC diagnosed subjects with limitations on the FCE. However, high scores did not guarantee performance without physical work limitations. These results are specific to the tested persons with early OA, in populations with a different prevalence of limitations, different diagnostic values will be found. FCE may be indicated to help clinicians to assess actual work capacity.
In very old and/or frail older people living in long-term care facilities, physical inactivity negatively affects activities of daily living. The main reason to assess older adults' perceived fitness is to establish the relation with their beliefs about their ability to perform physical activity adjusted to daily tasks. The Self-Assessment of Physical Fitness scale was developed to address these needs. The aim of this study was to estimate the test-retest reliability and construct validity of the scale. 76 elderly people (M age = 86.0 yr., SD = 6.3) completed the test. Cronbach's a was .71. One-week test-retest reliability ICC's ranged from .66 (SAPF aerobic endurance and SAPF balance) to .70 (SAPF sum score). Concurrent validity with the Groningen Fitness Test for the Elderly was fair to moderate. Despite the limited number of participants (N = 76), results suggest that the scale may be useful as an assessment of perceived fitness in older adults.
LINK
OBJECTIVES: In health evaluations, physical activity (PA) and cardiorespiratory fitness (maximal oxygen uptake [VO2max]) are important variables. It is not always possible to assess both of them. If the association between self-reported PA and VO2max was strong, it would be possible to use the information on PA to make assumptions about VO2max and vice versa. However, little is known about this relation, in particular among women at high risk for cardiovascular disease. Our aim was to study the association between self-reported PA (Short QUestionnaire to ASses Health enhancing PA) and fitness (determined using the Siconolfi step test) among sedentary women in a multiethnic population.STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Participants were sampled from an exercise program for sedentary women (The Netherlands, 2008-09). Linear regression was performed with VO2max (dependent variable) and self-reported PA (independent variable); covariates were age and body mass index.RESULTS: One hundred ninety-seven women from different ethnic backgrounds were included. No significant association was found between VO2max and PA (R(2) = 0.60).CONCLUSION: A poor association was found between self-reported PA and estimated VO2max. Hence, PA and VO2max represent two different aspects of health in sedentary women and cannot be used interchangeably. This should be taken into account when evaluating health promotion interventions or when making health risks statements in sedentary women in a multiethnic population.
