Objective: Brief, ecologically-valid, functional assessment is an important part of a neuropsychologist's repertoire. The Texas Functional Living Scale (TFLS) assesses independent activities of daily living with four subscales—Time, Money and Calculation, Communication, and Memory—and an overall severity index (SI). The SI has adequate psychometrics, but research on the subscales is lacking. This study expanded on a previous study examining convergent validity of the subscales and investigated relationships with collateral report of cognitive functioning, internal consistency, and factor analysis. Method: This archival clinical sample included 201 veterans (52% White, 35% Hispanic, 12% Black; 91% male), with a mean age of 60.57 (SD = 11.66) and mean education of 12.92 (SD = 2.83). The Everyday Cognition (ECog) scale was included as collateral report of functioning within cognitive domains of language, visuospatial, memory, and executive functioning. The ECog was correlated with TFLS subscales. Cronbach's alpha and principle component analyses (PCA) were conducted with a subset of the sample (n = 128). Results: None of the individual TFLS subscales correlated with collateral report; however, the SI had modest correlations with ECog, specifically visuospatial and planning abilities. Reliability was adequate for 2 TFLS subscales (αs > .70; Time α = .21; Memory α = .41). When Time items were removed, the SI reliability increased from .75 to .82. PCA extracted a 1-factor solution from the data, which explained 21% of the variance. Conclusion: The TFLS is best used as an overall measure of functional impairment as some subscales were unreliable and did not differentially relate with collateral report in this clinical sample.
Latent Structure and Collateral Report Relationships of the Texas Functional Living Scale with Geriatric Veterans
D González, J Marceaux, K McCoy, J Soble; C-64
Latent Structure and Collateral Report Relationships of the Texas Functional Living Scale with Geriatric Veterans. Arch Clin Neuropsychol 2015; 30 (6): 587. doi: 10.1093/arclin/acv047.266
Download citation file:
© 2017 Oxford University Press×