Skip to main content
Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

< Back to Article

Fig 1.

The Quick Physical Activity Rating (QPAR).

More »

Fig 1 Expand

Table 1.

Sample characteristics (n = 390).

More »

Table 1 Expand

Table 2.

QPAR item distributions, inter-item, and item-total correlations.

More »

Table 2 Expand

Table 3.

QPAR scale score features, distribution, and internal-consistency reliability statistics.

More »

Table 3 Expand

Table 4.

Concurrent validity with QPAR.

More »

Table 4 Expand

Table 5.

Strength of association of the QPAR items with outcome measures.

More »

Table 5 Expand

Fig 2.

Receiver operator characteristics curve for QPAR.

We tested the ability of the QPAR to discriminate between individuals with impaired physical functionality (mPPT), falls risk (TUG) and the presence of frailty (CHSA rating). Panel A: The QPAR demonstrated good discrimination between normal and impaired physical functionality as determined by mPPT scores with an AUC 0.747 (95%CI: 0.69–0.79, p < .001). Panel B: The QPAR showed good discrimination between low and increased falls risk determined by TUG times with an AUC 0.730 (95% CI: 0.67–0.79, p < .001). Panel C: The QPAR demonstrated good discrimination between individuals with and without frailty by CHSA staging with an AUC 0.769 (95% CI: 0.72–0.82, p < .001).

More »

Fig 2 Expand

Table 6.

QPAR and mPPT scores by sociodemographic characteristics, CDR staging, and dementia etiology.

More »

Table 6 Expand