Screening Frailty Among Community-Dwelling Older Adults: A Cross-Sectional Study Comparing the Edmonton Frail Scale and the Clinical-Functional Vulnerability Index-20.
4 affiliations
- 1Department of Physical Therapy, Universidade de Rio Verde, Fazenda Fontes do Saber, Campus Universitário, P.O. Box 104, Rio Verde 75901-970, GO, Brazil.
- 2Postgraduate Program in Human Movement and Rehabilitation, Evangelical University of Goiás, Campus Anápolis, Av. Universitária, Km 3.5, Cidade Universitária, Anápolis 75083-515, GO, Brazil.
- 3Department of Medicine, Universidade de Rio Verde, Fazenda Fontes do Saber, Campus Universitário, P.O. Box 104, Rio Verde 75901-970, GO, Brazil.
- 4IRyS Research Group, School of Physical Education, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Valparaíso, Av. Universidad 651, Curauma, Valparaíso 2581967, Chile.
Abstract
Background/Objectives: The Edmonton Frail Scale (EFS) and the Clinical-Functional Vulnerability Index-20 (IVCF-20) are multidimensional screening instruments that differ in the domains assessed, scoring systems, and classification thresholds, which may lead to different frailty-related classifications. Although both instruments are used to identify vulnerability in older adults, the extent to which their classifications agree remains insufficiently characterized. This study compared EFS and IVCF-20 classifications among community-dwelling older adults by examining category distribution, cross-classification, agreement, and correlation between total scores. Methods: This cross-sectional observational study included 110 community-dwelling adults aged ≥60 years recruited by convenience sampling from a public community center in Rio Verde, Goiás, Brazil. Participants completed the EFS and IVCF-20 during the same assessment session. Agreement across the original three ordinal categories was evaluated using linear-weighted Cohen's kappa, and the relationship between total scores was assessed using Spearman's rank correlation coefficient. Results: The EFS classified 43.6% of participants as non-frail, 31.8% as pre-frail, and 24.5% as frail, whereas the IVCF-20 classified 43.6% as robust, 37.3% as potentially frail, and 19.1% as frail. Exact agreement was observed in 65.5% of participants (95% CI: 56.2-73.7%), and linear-weighted Cohen's kappa indicated moderate agreement (κ = 0.543; 95% CI: 0.415-0.670; p < 0.001). Most discordant classifications occurred between adjacent categories. Total scores were strongly positively correlated (Spearman's ρ = 0.745; p < 0.001). Conclusions: The EFS and IVCF-20 showed a strong correlation between total scores but only moderate agreement between frailty-related classifications. Although the instruments capture related dimensions of vulnerability, their classifications should not be considered interchangeable.
Related
- Integrated multidomain screening for geriatric vulnerability in primary care: a conceptual framework for community-dwelling older adults
- Self-reported prevalence of tuberculosis and selected associated vulnerability factors among rural populations in six districts of India: A community-based cross-sectional study
- Uptake of sickle cell screening among sexually active unmarried young adults in Gulu City, northern Uganda: a community-based cross-sectional study
- Association of homocysteine and waist-to-height ratio with poor sleep quality in community-dwelling individuals at high risk of stroke: a cross-sectional study based on two community screening rounds in 2015 and 2025
- Community-based digital surveillance for scabies-compatible presentations in Nyasa District, Tanzania: A cross-sectional household screening study
BibTeX
@article{arantes2026screening,
title = {{Screening Frailty Among Community-Dwelling Older Adults: A Cross-Sectional Study Comparing the Edmonton Frail Scale and the Clinical-Functional Vulnerability Index-20.}},
author = {Ana Paula Felix Arantes and Fabiana Machado Pires and Rodrigo Franco de Oliveira and Maria Fernanda Pereira Costa Carvalho and Lorenna Guimarães Pereira and Vitor Oliveira Arantes and Mariana de Jesus Ferreira and Guilherme Martins Oliveira and Maria Fernanda Gomes Pereira and Gabriela Evangelista Nascimento and Renato Canevari Dutra da Silva and Adriana Vieira Macedo Brugnoli and Caroline Brand and Deise Aparecida de Almeida Pires Oliveira},
journal = {Geriatrics (Basel, Switzerland)},
year = {2026},
month = oct,
doi = {10.3390/geriatrics11050141},
url = {https://europepmc.org/article/MED/42930020},
note = {CC BY},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Screening Frailty Among Community-Dwelling Older Adults: A Cross-Sectional Study Comparing the Edmonton Frail Scale and the Clinical-Functional Vulnerability Index-20.
AU - Ana Paula Felix Arantes
AU - Fabiana Machado Pires
AU - Rodrigo Franco de Oliveira
AU - Maria Fernanda Pereira Costa Carvalho
AU - Lorenna Guimarães Pereira
AU - Vitor Oliveira Arantes
AU - Mariana de Jesus Ferreira
AU - Guilherme Martins Oliveira
AU - Maria Fernanda Gomes Pereira
AU - Gabriela Evangelista Nascimento
AU - Renato Canevari Dutra da Silva
AU - Adriana Vieira Macedo Brugnoli
AU - Caroline Brand
AU - Deise Aparecida de Almeida Pires Oliveira
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/10/07
JO - Geriatrics (Basel, Switzerland)
DO - 10.3390/geriatrics11050141
UR - https://europepmc.org/article/MED/42930020
AB - Background/Objectives: The Edmonton Frail Scale (EFS) and the Clinical-Functional Vulnerability Index-20 (IVCF-20) are multidimensional screening instruments that differ in the domains assessed, scoring systems, and classification thresholds, which may lead to different frailty-related classifications. Although both instruments are used to identify vulnerability in older adults, the extent to which their classifications agree remains insufficiently characterized. This study compared EFS and IVCF-20 classifications among community-dwelling older adults by examining category distribution, cross-classification, agreement, and correlation between total scores. Methods: This cross-sectional observational study included 110 community-dwelling adults aged ≥60 years recruited by convenience sampling from a public community center in Rio Verde, Goiás, Brazil. Participants completed the EFS and IVCF-20 during the same assessment session. Agreement across the original three ordinal categories was evaluated using linear-weighted Cohen's kappa, and the relationship between total scores was assessed using Spearman's rank correlation coefficient. Results: The EFS classified 43.6% of participants as non-frail, 31.8% as pre-frail, and 24.5% as frail, whereas the IVCF-20 classified 43.6% as robust, 37.3% as potentially frail, and 19.1% as frail. Exact agreement was observed in 65.5% of participants (95% CI: 56.2-73.7%), and linear-weighted Cohen's kappa indicated moderate agreement (κ = 0.543; 95% CI: 0.415-0.670; p < 0.001). Most discordant classifications occurred between adjacent categories. Total scores were strongly positively correlated (Spearman's ρ = 0.745; p < 0.001). Conclusions: The EFS and IVCF-20 showed a strong correlation between total scores but only moderate agreement between frailty-related classifications. Although the instruments capture related dimensions of vulnerability, their classifications should not be considered interchangeable.
SN - 2308-3417
ER -