↓ Skip to main content

An evaluation of the psychometric properties of the Indicator of Relative Need (IoRN) instrument

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Geriatrics, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
51 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
An evaluation of the psychometric properties of the Indicator of Relative Need (IoRN) instrument
Published in
BMC Geriatrics, July 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12877-016-0321-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anne Canny, Frances Robertson, Peter Knight, Adam Redpath, Miles D. Witham

Abstract

The Indicator of Relative Need (IoRN) instrument is designed for both health and social care services to measure function and dependency in older people. To date, the tool has not undergone assessment of validity. We report two studies aimed to evaluate psychometric properties of the IoRN. The first study recruited patients receiving social care at discharge from hospital, those rehabilitating in intermediate care, and those in a rehabilitation at home service. Participants were assessed using the IoRN by a single researcher and by the clinical team at baseline and 8 weeks. Comparator instruments (Barthel ADL, Nottingham Extended ADL and Townsend Disability Scale) were also administered. Overall change in ability was assessed with a 7 point Likert scale at 8 weeks. The second study analysed linked routinely collected, health and social care data (including IoRN scores) to assess the relationship between IoRN category and death, hospitalisation and care home admission as a test of external validity. Ninety participants were included in the first study, mean age 77.9 (SD 12.0). Cronbach's alpha for IoRN subscales was high (0.87 to 0.93); subscales showed moderate correlation with comparator tools (r = 0.43 to 0.63). Cohen's weighted kappa showed moderate agreement between researcher and clinician IoRN category (0.49 to 0.53). Two-way intraclass correlation coefficients for IoRN subscales in participants reporting no change in ability were high (0.88 to 0.98) suggesting good stability; responsiveness coefficients in participants reporting overall change were equal to or better than comparator tools. 1712 patients were included in the second study, mean age 81.0 years (SD 7.7). Adjusted hazard ratios for death, care home admission and hospitalisation in the most dependent category compared to the least dependent IoRN category were 5.9 (95 % CI 2.0-17.0); 7.2 (95 % CI 4.4-12.0); 1.1 (95 % CI 0.5-2.6) respectively. The mean number of allocated hours of care 6 months after assessment was higher in the most dependent group compared to the least dependent group (5.6 vs 1.4 h, p = 0.005). Findings from these analyses support the use of the IoRN across a range of clinical environments although some limitations are highlighted.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 51 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Unknown 50 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 14%
Student > Master 7 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 12%
Student > Bachelor 4 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 6%
Other 6 12%
Unknown 18 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 12 24%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 16%
Engineering 3 6%
Social Sciences 2 4%
Computer Science 1 2%
Other 6 12%
Unknown 19 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 September 2016.
All research outputs
#15,393,039
of 24,397,600 outputs
Outputs from BMC Geriatrics
#2,363
of 3,384 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#223,433
of 373,297 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Geriatrics
#24
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,397,600 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,384 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 373,297 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 30 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.