Assessing the feasibility of linking Section G and Section GG measures of function in skilled nursing facilities

Clicks: 1
ID: 314713
2026
Free PDF
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal

Ranked #137 of 155 articles by views in the gerontologist

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 155 in total.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
Abstract Background and Objectives In skilled nursing facilities (SNFs), Section GG replaced Section G as the instrument for measuring function in 2023. To inform how previously validated scales and scores derived from Section G items might be re-produced from Section GG items, we examined key measurement assumptions in both instruments. Research Design and Methods We identified 1,131,694 Minimum Data Set 3.0 assessments of unique persons with complete Sections GG and G between October 2018 and September 2023 across 2,200 SNFs in the Long-Term Care Data Cooperative. We examined: (i) assessment instructions, (ii) item-level Spearman’s correlations, (iii) measures of fit and factor structure in confirmatory and exploratory factor analyses (CFA and EFA), and (iv) graded response item response theory (IRT) parameters. Results Several Section GG items were conceptually similar and highly correlated (ρ ≥ 0.7). After removing redundant items, a combined scale of both instruments was not unidimensional in CFA (Comparative Fit Index = 0.753, Tucker-Lewis Index = 0.724, root-mean-square error of approximation = 0.153) and items from each instrument generally loaded onto separate but correlated factors (inter-factor correlation 0.735) in EFA. In IRT analyses, Section GG items better captured independence while Section G items better captured dependence. Discussion and Implications Sections GG and G measure related yet distinct constructs, emphasizing the need for caution when interpreting a sum of Section GG items as a reflection of underlying health in SNF patients. Scales and scores derived from Section G items cannot be presumed to be equivalent when derived from Section GG items, and further work is needed examining interchangeability.
Reference Key
openalex_W7162139826 Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Kenneth Lam, Elizabeth M. White, Kevin W McConeghy, Laura D. Scherer, Jennifer Stevens-Lapsley, V Mor, Heather Smyth, Roee Gutman
Journal the gerontologist
Year 2026
DOI
10.1093/geront/gnag116
URL
https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnag116
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.