Ïã¸ÛÁùºÏ²Ê¼´Ê±¿ª½±

Acquired Brain Injury: (Robnett et al., 2015; n = 31; age range = 18-64 years; TBI = 15, CVA=9, brain tumor = 2, anoxic brain injury = 2, concurrent TBI and SCI = 2, alcohol induced amnestic syndrome = 1; New England sample)

 mean score = 3.5

Concurrent validity

Acquired Brain Injury: (Robnett et al., 2015)

Adequate correlation with Safe at Home Screening (SAH) (r = -.53, p = .002)

¡°Content validity of the KELS was determined by a team of expert occupational therapists. The therapists rated the client¡¯s needed level of assistance and home safety, which was then correlated with the KELS score. There was a moderate correlation for both level of assistance and home safety level.¡± (Robnett et al., 2015, pg. 22)

Older Adults in the Community: (Zimnavoda, Weinblatt, & Katz, 2002; Community group: n = 34; mean age = 77.5 (6.9) years; Sheltered housing group: n = 44; mean age = 83.9 (5.7) years; Day care group: n = 14; mean age = 77 (10.5) years; Israeli sample; scores from Hebrew translation of KELS compared to Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE), Functional Independence Measure (FIM), and Routine Task Inventory (RTI) scores)

• Community group mean KELS score: 1.87 (2.50)
• Sheltered housing group mean KELS score: 4.37 (3.89)
• Day care group mean KELS score: 10.28 (4.61)

Elderly Self-Neglectors: (Naik, Burnett, Pickens-Pace, & Dyer, 2008; Self-neglect referral group: n = 100; mean age = 76.5 (7.2) years; Community-living control group: n = 100; mean age = 76.1 (6.9); Texas sample).

• Self-neglect group mean KELS score: 5.9 (2.7)

Community-living control group mean KELS score: 4.3 (2.2)

Older Adults in the Community: (Zimnavoda et al., 2002)

Recommended that test-retest reliability undergo further evaluation

Interrater reliability

Older Adults in the Community:

• 100% agreement between two occupational therapists rating 10 subjects (Zimnavoda et al., 2002)

Adequate to excellent interrater reliability (ICC = .74-.98) (Kohlman & McGourty, 1978; unpublished manuscript without details on population)

Concurrent validity

Older Adults in Assisted Living: (Cinquemano, Gaijjar, & Martin, 2009): unpublished master¡¯s thesis without details  on population

• Adequate concurrent validity: Scores on MMSE correlated with scores on the second and third version of KELS (no ICC given)

Older Adults in the Community: (Zimnavoda et al., 2002)

• Excellent Spearman correlations in all participants (p = 0.000)
• Excellent concurrent validity for all measures:
  • KELS and MMSE: r = -0.757
  • KELS and FIM: r = -0.707
  • KELS and RTI: r = -0.895

Predictive validity

Inpatients on Geriatric Unit: (Morrow, 1985; n = 20): unpublished master¡¯s thesis without details on population

• Excellent predictive validity; pre-discharge KELS scores were 100% accurate in predicting which geriatric patients would be successful in community-living placements 40 days after discharge (r = 1.00)

Elderly Self-Neglectors: (Pickens et al., 2006; self-neglect group: n = 50; mean age = 76.3 y; community control group: n = 50; mean age = 76.5 y)

Self-neglectors were significantly more likely to fail the KELS than community matched controls (50% vs 30%, chi squared = 5.0, p = .025).

Convergent Validity:

Older Adults in the Community: (Burnett, Dyer, & Naik, 2009; adult protective services referral group: n = 100, mean age = 76.5 (7.2); community comparison group: n=100, mean age = 76.1 (6.9); Texas sample)

• Authors report that convergent validity of the KELS ranges from poor to excellent depending on the assessment measure and group being assessed
• KELS showed poor convergent validity with the Knee Extensor Break Test with all participants and in the 8 Foot Walk Test with the Adult Protective Services Group

Discriminant Validity

Older Adults in the Community: (Zimnavoda et al., 2002)

• KELS shows significant discrimination between groups living in the community, in sheltered housing, and in day care (Post-hoc Scheffe range: p = 0.01 to 0.000).

Geriatric Self-Neglectors: (Naik et al., 2008)

Comparison between modified Physical Performance Test (mPPT) and KELS across four models (Socio-demographics, Social Support, Health Status, and Composite) showed significant impairment in ADLs as reflected by KELS scores, but no significant impairment in mPPT scores.

Inpatient schizophrenic: (calculated from Kazazi, Karbalaei-Noori, & Karimlou, 2011;  n = 35; mean age = 33.20 (8.92) ; mean KELS score = 6.271)

• SEM for entire group: 0.511

Outpatient schizophrenic: (calculated from Kazazi et al., 2011; n = 51; mean age = 35.80 (9.58); mean KELS score = 6.931)

• SEM for entire group: 0.427

*note: Kazazi et al., 2011 uses a version of the KELS translated to Farsi

Inpatient schizophrenic: (calculated from Kazazi et al., 2011; n = 35; mean age = 33.20; mean KELS score = 6.271)

• MDC: 1.416

Outpatient schizophrenic: (calculated from Kazazi et al., 2010; n = 51; mean age = 35.80; mean KELS score = 6.931)

MDC: 1.185

Outpatient schizophrenic: (Kazazi et al., 2011)

Excellent test-retest reliability: (ICC = 0.997, p < 0.001)

Outpatient schizophrenic: (Kazazi et al., 2011)

• Excellent test-retest reliability: (ICC = 0.966)

Psychiatric patients: (Ilika & Hoffman, 1981) unpublished study with unknown research design

Adequate to Excellent Interrater correlations significant at p < .001 (ICC = 0.74-0.94)

Concurrent validity:

Inpatient Schizophrenic: (Kazazi et al., 2011)

• Excellent concurrent validity between KELS and global assessment scale in 35 patients: (r = 0.688; p < 0.001)

Inpatient Psychiatric (general):

• Excellent concurrent validity between KELS and global assessment scale: (r = 0.78 to 0.89; p<0.001) (Zimnavoda et al., 2002)
• Excellent concurrent validity between KELS and BaFPE: (r = -0.84; p<0.0001) (Zimnavoda et al., 2002)
• Adequate concurrent validity between KELS and Bay Area Functional Performance Evaluation (BaFPE) (r= -.84) (Kauffman, 1982; unpublished master¡¯s thesis without details on population)

Predictive validity

Inpatient Psychiatric (general): (Kohlman & McGourty, 1978)

Poor predictive validity for predicting independent living after discharge from hospital (r = .04)

Construct validity

Psychiatric inpatient, outpatient, and healthy individuals: (Kazazi et al., 2011)

• Living skills in the three groups (Chi-squared = 69.714, p = 0.020)
• Mean scores in healthy individuals showed significant differences within patients and outpatients (p = 0.001)

No difference between scores of outpatients and inpatients (p = 0.693)

Psychiatric inpatient, outpatient, and healthy individuals: (Kazazi et al., 2011)

Face validity was determined by two experts who reviewed and approved the translated version of the KELS.