Evaluation of Activities of Daily Living: Current Insights and Future Horizons

Article information

Ann Geriatr Med Res. 2025;.agmr.24.0172
Publication date (electronic) : 2025 February 6
doi : https://doi.org/10.4235/agmr.24.0172
1Institute of Tissue Regeneration Engineering (ITREN), Dankook University, Cheonan, Republic of Korea
2Department of Chemistry, College of Science and Engineering, Dankook University, Cheonan, Republic of Korea
3Department of Psychiatry, Dankook University Hospital, Cheonan, Republic of Korea
4Department of Psychiatry, College of Medicine, Dankook University, Cheonan, Republic of Korea
Corresponding Author: Seok Bum Lee, MD, PhD Department of Psychiatry, College of Medicine, Dankook University, Dadae-ro 119, Cheonan 31116, Republic of Korea E-mail: bumlee@dankook.ac.kr
Received 2024 November 5; Revised 2025 January 24; Accepted 2025 February 4.

Abstract

Activities of daily living (ADL) assessments are crucial for evaluating functional independence and formulating care strategies for older adults. However, the existing tools encounter challenges, including cultural bias, subjectivity, and limited sensitivity to subtle changes in functional abilities. This review examines these limitations across basic, instrumental, and extended ADL categories and explores the integration of emerging technologies, such as artificial intelligence, sensor-based systems, and remote monitoring tools, to address these gaps. Technological advancements have the potential to enhance the accuracy, efficiency, and inclusivity of ADL assessment by providing objective data, supporting real-time evaluations, and enabling personalized care plans. By bridging the gap between traditional methods and innovative technologies, this review highlights a pathway for more equitable and effective assessments, ensuring that older adults across diverse contexts receive tailored support to maintain their independence and improve their quality of life.

INTRODUCTION

Activities of daily living (ADL) encompass essential tasks that individuals must perform independently to function in daily life.1) These assessments cover a range of routine physical activities, including eating, dressing, bathing, transferring, toileting, and personal hygiene.2) Evaluating an individual’s capacity to perform ADLs is crucial for determining their functional independence, overall health, and potential care needs, particularly among older adults or people with disabilities.3,4)

This field has attracted considerable attention for several reasons. First, the increasing proportion of older adults worldwide has made the maintenance and improvement of functional independence a pressing social concern.5) Second, the growing number of people with chronic illnesses and disabilities underscores the importance of establishing robust systems to assess and support their functional abilities in everyday activities.6,7) Furthermore, as healthcare systems evolve toward a prevention-oriented and patient-centered model, ADLs have emerged as central indicators for guiding personalized treatment and rehabilitation.8) Advancements in digital health, such as wearable devices, artificial intelligence (AI), and remote monitoring technologies, also support the collection and analysis of ADL data.9,10) For instance, these innovations enable real-time monitoring, personalized interventions, and comprehensive data analysis, which enhance the accuracy and efficiency of ADL assessments.10) As a result, ADLs have a crucial role in enhancing quality of life and enabling effective healthcare delivery, making their assessment a topic of continued interest.11)

This study aims to provide a comprehensive review of ADL assessment methods, highlighting their evolution, current challenges, and potential for technological integration. By addressing these issues, we aim to propose a framework for the future development of ADL tools that support individualized care plans and improve the quality of life for various populations.

CONCEPT AND IMPORTANCE OF ACTIVITIES OF DAILY LIVING

ADL includes a range of everyday tasks necessary for individuals to maintain their independence and quality of life.12) ADL refers not only to basic self-care but also to functional activities that promote social engagement and overall well-being.13) This idea extends beyond basic survival and represents a set of skills essential for autonomous and fulfilling living in society.14) ADL is typically categorized into three core groups: basic ADL (BADL), instrumental ADL (IADL), and extended ADL (EADL)/higher-order ADL.15,16)

BADL involves fundamental self-care tasks that individuals must complete independently each day.17) These essential activities, including bathing, dressing, eating, transferring, toileting, and managing continence, are vital for physical well-being and daily bodily functions.17,18) BADL serves as a primary measure of functional independence, particularly for older adults, individuals undergoing rehabilitation, and those with chronic health issues.19,20) Evaluating BADL provides valuable insights into a person’s current abilities, supports the development of effective rehabilitation goals and treatment plans, and assists in forecasting the likelihood of recovery and return to independent living.21) Additionally, BADL assessments clarify the level of assistance an individual may need with daily activities, helping outline the necessary scope of care services.22)

The term “IADL” involves more complex tasks that support independent living within both home and community settings.23) Requiring greater cognitive function and advanced skills than BADL, IADL is a crucial indicator of an individual’s social independence and overall quality of life.24) Core IADL activities include meal preparation, shopping, housekeeping, transportation, financial management, communication, medication management, and engaging in leisure activities.25) IADL, which is closely tied to cognitive health, serves as an important marker for early dementia detection and is an indicator of social independence.26) IADL assessments inform personalized rehabilitation plans and care services and can support policy efforts aimed at improving quality of life and fostering social participation among older adults in aging societies.27)

EADL encompasses higher-level complex tasks that individuals undertake to fully engage in society and enhance their life satisfaction.28) Unlike BADL and IADL, EADL emphasizes activities that are integral to fulfilling social roles, achieving personal growth, and improving the quality of life.29) Core aspects of EADL include occupational tasks, leisure and hobbies, social interactions, cognitive and learning activities, psychological and spiritual development, and involvement in the community.28) Evaluating EADL provides a comprehensive picture of an individual’s social, mental, and physical abilities, supporting the design of individualized programs aimed at enhancing quality of life.30) Additionally, assessing EADL can help identify and manage mental health concerns, such as isolation and depression, at an early stage. This information can also contribute to policies that support active social participation among older adults within aging populations.31)

The three categories of ADL (BADL, IADL, and EADL) serve as a framework for assessing the daily activities crucial for independence and overall well-being.17,28,32) By evaluating an individual’s ability to perform these activities independently, the necessary level of support can be identified, guiding the development of appropriate care or rehabilitation plans. Together, these categories relate closely to physical, cognitive, and social health, exerting a substantial influence on the quality of life and social involvement.

In summary, the three ADL categories (BADL, IADL, and EADL) represent varying degrees of self-care, independence, and social engagement, collectively forming the basis for an individual's overall quality of life and social involvement.

In this context, ADL is of considerable clinical and research significance. They can be used to assess an individual’s medical care requirements, capacity to maintain fundamental daily living activities, formulate rehabilitation objectives, and develop care plans.11) Additionally, ADL evaluation contributes to individuals’ life satisfaction and social inclusion.33) ADL assessments are widely used in fields, such as medicine, nursing, rehabilitation therapy, social services, and community support programs.34,35) They are instrumental in assessing abilities related to mental health, social psychology, gerontology, and vocational rehabilitation.36,37) For older adults, ADL assessments help determine support requirements by evaluating performance in BADL and IADL, identifying early cognitive decline through reduced IADL capabilities, and assessing fall risk.38-40) By comprehensively evaluating an individual’s ability to perform these activities, clinicians can identify the areas of need, implement targeted interventions, and monitor progress over time. As technology continues to advance, the integration of digital tools and data-driven approaches into ADL assessments holds great potential for improving the accuracy, efficiency, and personalization of care.

TOOLS FOR ASSESSING BADL

A range of tools are available today to assess ADL, with some of the most commonly used for BADL being the Katz Index, Barthel Index, Functional Independence Measure (FIM), and Psychogeriatric Dependency Rating Scale (PGDRS).

The Katz Index uses a binary scoring method to evaluate each activity for independence.17) This tool includes six essential tasks that allow for a quick and straightforward assessment; has been widely adopted in clinical settings with studies supporting its reliability and validity.41) Additionally, the Katz Index is easy to administer to healthcare providers as it requires no specialized equipment or training.42) However, the tool has limitations in tracking changes in patients with milder conditions or those recovering from illness, and may not adequately capture cultural variations in task performance.43,44) For example, the Katz Index has been validated in neuropathological studies, which demonstrated high reliability for assessing BADL retrospectively, with a strong Cronbach's alpha (α=0.93) and standardized item-total correlations exceeding 0.90.45) While some item redundancy (correlations >0.85) was observed, likely owing to informant bias, the scale remains a reliable tool for evaluating ADL performance even in individuals with cognitive decline.45) Subsequent revisions should address multicollinearity to enhance precision.45)

The Barthel Index assigns scores to 10 items, and the total score reflects overall independence.46) This tool is frequently used in rehabilitation settings as an effective method of monitoring changes in function and recovery.47) Numerous studies have validated the reliability and accuracy of the Barthel Index.48) However, their use in geriatric settings may lead to inconsistent ratings, particularly when conducted by untrained nursing staff.49) The assessment process is also more time-intensive than the Katz Index and may be less reliable for cognitive aspects.50,51) Proper training of raters is essential for accurate assessments. For instance, the present study employed Rasch analysis to assess the suitability of the Barthel Index for evaluating BADL in patients with dementia. The study's key findings revealed that the Barthel Index is compromised by issues such as person-item mistargeting, redundant and misfitting items (e.g., "mobility" and "stairs climbing"), and cultural measurement bias. The study further underscored the impact of specific neuropsychiatric symptoms, such as disinhibition and agitation, particularly Barthel Index item scores, thereby emphasizing the necessity for dementia-specific ADL assessment tools. The authors recommended refinement of the Barthel Index to address these limitations, particularly within the context of dementia care settings.52)

The FIM covers 18 items, including physical and cognitive functions, and offers a comprehensive assessment of an individual’s abilities.53) As a standardized tool, it is suitable for various clinical environments.53) However, the extensive number of items requires more time, and the scoring process can be challenging for new users, making the rater training essential.54,55) We et al.56) developed and evaluated as a home-based rehabilitation management program for elderly stroke patients using the FIM score as a guide. A controlled trial compared 290 participants with the intervention group using FIM-based tailored exercises and the control group following standard home rehabilitation instructions. The results showed significant improvements in motor function, self-care ability (Barthel Index), and cognitive function (Mini-Mental State Examination) in the intervention group at 4 and 8 weeks, with lower levels of disability (modified Rankin Scale scores). These results support the efficacy of the FIM-guided approach for personalized stroke rehabilitation.

The PGDRS is designed to assess levels of functional dependence in older adults, particularly those with psychiatric or cognitive conditions such as dementia.57) This scale is effective in evaluating physical, psychological, and social dependencies through assessments based on observations and reports conducted by trained professionals, including nurses, occupational therapists, and doctors.58,59) The PGDRS includes two subscales: physical dependency (PGDRS-P) and behavioral dependency (PGDRS-B). The PGDRS-P assesses physical independence and evaluates daily tasks, such as bathing, dressing, eating, transferring, and toileting.60) Conversely, PGDRS-B focuses on identifying behavioral issues associated with dementia or other mental health conditions, covering factors such as social interactions, anxiety, aggression, and behavior-related dependencies.61) While PGDRS-P does not address cognitive or behavioral issues, PGDRS-B has limitations in evaluating physical function. Thus, using both scales together provides a more complete assessment of the patient’s functional and dependency status. For example, Adams et al.57) evaluated the PGDRS to determine its factor structure and assess its utility in measuring the efficacy of antipsychotic treatments for dementia-related behavioral and psychological symptoms (BPSD). Factor analysis identified four core dimensions—disruptive overactivity, thought/communication disorder, interpersonal aggressiveness, and destructiveness—which accounted for approximately 60% of the total variance. Among the medications tested, olanzapine showed superior efficacy in reducing interpersonal aggressiveness compared with haloperidol and risperidone, although no significant differences were observed for other factors. These findings confirmed that the PGDRS is a reliable multidimensional tool for assessing BPSD and tailoring treatment strategies for dementia care.

Table 1 summarizes the key features of BADL assessment tools.

A summary of the principal characteristics of the basic activities of daily living assessment tools

TOOLS FOR ASSESSING IADL

Several tools are available for evaluating IADL, including the Lawton-Brody IADL Scale, Direct Assessment of Functional Abilities (DAFA), Assessment of Motor and Process Skills (AMPS), and Alzheimer’s Disease Cooperative Study-activities of daily living scale (ADCS-ADL).

The Lawton-Brody IADL Scale includes eight tasks that measure the ability to perform activities independently, such as telephone use, meal preparation, shopping, housework, transportation, laundry, financial management, and medication management.62,63) It is known for its simplicity and ease of administration, and widely used to evaluate functional ability in older adults and reflects gender differences in activity performance.64-66) However, adjustments to the scale may be necessary in cultures where activity roles vary by gender, as this can influence the responses.67) Additionally, because the scale relies on self-reporting, it may be subject to bias and may not effectively differentiate between higher and lower levels of functioning.27) For individuals with cognitive impairment, self-reporting may limit the accuracy.68) Some studies have sought to address the limitations of the previous research. Siriwardhana et al.63) adapted and validated the Sinhala version of the Lawton IADL Scale to assess functional independence among older adults in Sri Lanka. A psychometric evaluation involving 702 participants revealed excellent internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha=0.91) and substantial inter-rater reliability (intra class correlation [ICC]=0.57–0.91). Factor analysis confirmed the scale’s unidimensional structure (comparative fit index [CFI] = 0.98), and moderate convergent validity was demonstrated through its correlation with the Barthel Index (ρ=0.61). The presence of significant score variations across age groups supports the divergent validity. The Sinhala Lawton IADL scale has been demonstrated to be a reliable and valid instrument that provides an effective method for evaluating instrumental activities of daily living in aging populations, for both research and healthcare applications.

The DAFA assesses functional skills directly through tasks that mimic real-life scenarios, ensuring reliability and addressing activities with significant cognitive demands.69) However, the assessment process can be lengthy, potentially causing fatigue or stress in the patients.69) The DAFA also requires specific materials and settings, often necessitating a clinical environment, and its effectiveness depends largely on the expertise of the assessor.69) In a study of 43 participants, the DAFA demonstrated excellent reliability (r=0.95, p<0.01) and revealed a significant overestimation of abilities in individuals with dementia, particularly for tasks requiring awareness and comprehension. The informant ratings were more accurate with minimal underestimation.69) The DAFA’s ability to objectively assess functional impairment makes it a valuable tool, particularly for identifying preclinical disabilities in dementia. It is less prone to bias than self-reporting, ensuring an accurate assessment of functional status.

The AMPS examines a person’s ability to perform ADL by analyzing motor and process skills, which support detailed assessment and the creation of tailored intervention plans.70) However, the AMPS requires trained assessors, is expensive and time-intensive, and may not be fully adaptable across different cultural contexts.71) Darragh et al.71) examined the influence of familiar (home) versus unfamiliar (clinic) environments on IADL performance in adults with acquired brain injury. Using the AMPS, researchers assessed both motor and process skills in these settings. The key findings showed no significant differences in motor skills between home and clinical settings, but process skills were significantly better in the home setting. Scatter plot analyses revealed meaningful performance differences for a subset of participants, highlighting the role of environmental familiarity in task performance. These findings suggest that rehabilitation should prioritize home-based assessments and therapy to ensure accurate assessments and functional improvements tailored to real-life settings.

ADCS-ADL was designed to measure daily functional independence in people with dementia, including those with Alzheimer’s disease, and to track disease progression.72) Key areas of assessment included money and medication management, meal preparation, phone use, and shopping, with ratings based on feedback from the primary caregiver.73) However, this tool relies on subjective caregiver assessments, is less effective in identifying small changes, and does not account for cultural differences or behavioral symptoms.74,75) To address these limitations, using additional assessment tools in combination with the ADCS can provide a more comprehensive evaluation. For instance, ADCS-ADL was validated in a study involving 769 patients with amnestic MCI over 36 months. The scale exhibited strong reliability, as evidenced by a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.64 at baseline and 0.87 at month 36, and demonstrated good test-retest reliability, as indicated by an ICC of up to 0.73. The scale effectively distinguished between different levels of disease severity, thereby demonstrating known-group validity and exhibiting moderate-to-strong correlations with related clinical measures, such as the Clinical Dementia Rating Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB), thereby supporting its convergent validity. This scale demonstrates sensitivity to detecting functional changes over time, indicating responsiveness to disease progression. These findings confirm that ADCS-ADL-MCI is a reliable and valid tool for assessing functional abilities in mild cognitive impairment (MCI) populations, making it suitable for clinical and research applications.

Table 2 highlights the key features and scoring methods of prominent IADL assessment tools discussed in this study.

A summary of the features and scoring methods of commonly utilized instruments for the assessment of instrumental activities of daily living

TOOLS FOR ASSESSING EADL

Several tools are available for evaluating EADL, including the Nottingham Extended Activities of Daily Living Scale (NEADL), Frenchay Activities Index (FAI), Community Integration Questionnaire (CIQ), Reintegration to Normal Living Index (RNLI), Assessment of Life Habits (LIFE-H), WHO Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 (WHODAS 2.0), and Occupational Self-Assessment (OSA).

The NEADL was designed to assess EADLs in older adults and individuals recovering from stroke.76) It includes 22 items, each scored based on the task performance frequency.77) NEADL is widely used to evaluate functional independence and social involvement.77) However, as a self-report tool, it may introduce response bias, and certain items may lack relevance in varying cultural or social contexts.78,79) Additionally, those with cognitive impairments might struggle with accurate self-reporting.80) The NEADL scale was examined in patients with stroke to assess its validity, reliability, and concordance with other scales, including the Barthel Index and FAI.80) The NEADL exhibited a symmetrical distribution devoid of substantial floor or ceiling effects, a distinction from the Barthel Index and FAI. The NEADL demonstrated stronger concordance with the Barthel Index than with the FAI, thereby substantiating its capacity to appraise EADL in conjunction with fundamental ADL. The predictors of functional outcomes included stroke severity, as quantified by the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS), and cognitive status, as gauged by the Abbreviated Memory Test. The NEADL was found to be a sensitive and reliable instrument, particularly because of its capacity to assess EADL. Its integration with acute-stage NIHSS scores may facilitate patient outcome prediction and rehabilitation planning.

The FAI was primarily developed to assess the social and leisure activities of stroke survivors.81,82) It consists of 15 items that examine the frequency of engagement in activities over the past three months, covering physical tasks, instrumental activities, and certain aspects of disability.83) This tool offers valuable insights into activity participation and aids in setting rehabilitation goals.84) However, it was specifically designed for patients with stroke, which limits its generalizability to other populations.83) The FAI is a reliable instrument for evaluating lifestyle activities in patients with stroke.84) In conjunction with other assessment tools such as the Barthel Index, the FAI provides a comprehensive evaluation of daily activities. In a study involving 45 stroke patients, the FAI exhibited excellent inter-rater reliability, with an overall ICC of 0.90 (95% confidence interval, 0.82–0.94) and substantial agreement (kappa > 0.60) on 11 of its 15 items. However, the reliability of three items—namely, "local shopping," "social occasions," and "actively pursuing a hobby"—was suboptimal owing to the ambiguity of the provided scoring instructions. This study underscores the FAI’s efficacy in outpatient rehabilitation contexts and puts forward recommendations for the refinement of scoring guidelines, to enhance its consistency and clinical relevance.

The CIQ assesses the degree of community integration in patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI) by measuring social participation and role fulfillment across 15 items.85) The CIQ has been widely used by researchers and healthcare providers to assess reintegration into society.85) Nonetheless, as it was developed with TBI patients in mind, it may not be suitable for other groups, and there is a risk of varied interpretations among patients owing to subjective question phrasing.86,87) Additionally, the CIQ demands cognitive skills to understand and respond to complex items, which may affect the reliability of responses for correlation analysis.88,89) Gerber et al.89) assessed predictors of community integration and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in individuals with acquired brain injury (ABI) using the CIQ. The results indicated that the Disability Rating Scale (DRS) was the strongest predictor of community integration and HRQoL. However, the CIQ exhibited limitations, including insufficient evaluation of cognitive and emotional aspects and reliance on self-reported data. To address these limitations, this study proposes a two-pronged approach: first, the incorporation of additional measures to capture cognitive and emotional factors; and second, the enhancement of the CIQ’s validity through cultural adaptation. These findings underscore the necessity of targeting both physical and psychosocial factors in rehabilitation to enhance the integration and quality of life of ABI patients, ensuring a more comprehensive assessment of community reintegration.

The RNLI measures an individual’s reintegration into daily life after illness or disability, using items that assess social involvement, physical mobility, and recreational activities.90) This scale includes 11 items that cover social, psychological, and physical dimensions based on patient self-reports and provides a quick assessment of the quality of life.91-93) While the RNLI is a valuable measure, it can be subject to self-reporting biases, lacks specificity in certain areas, and may not account for cultural differences. Therefore, it is often best used alongside other objective tools.90,94) The present study focuses on the cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the RNLI for Igbo-speaking individuals with mobility disabilities in Southeast Nigeria.94) The study adhered to the guidelines established by the American Association of Orthopaedic Surgeons for adapting the English version of RNLI into Igbo. The validation results demonstrated excellent concurrent validity, as indicated by correlation coefficients ranging from 0.81 to 0.95, and internal consistency, as indicated by Cronbach’s alpha of 0.84. These findings suggest that the tool is reliable in this cultural context. Principal component analysis revealed two key domains thereby ensuring structural validity. The adapted RNLI is a valuable and reliable tool for assessing community reintegration in Igbo-speaking populations, emphasizing the importance of culturally appropriate instruments for disability rehabilitation.

The LIFE-H measures life habits and social participation across 12 domains, assessing both performance and satisfaction levels.95) It is a comprehensive tool suitable for individuals across different age groups with diverse types of disabilities, making it useful for intervention planning to enhance the social engagement of people with disabilities.96-98) However, the assessment process is time-consuming and may lead to fatigue and reduced patient attention.95) The LIFE-H is a valid and reliable instrument for the assessment of social participation among individuals with physical disabilities.97) Its strong test-retest reliability (ICC=0.71–0.95) and adequate concurrent validity with the Barthel Index are notable findings in this regard. However, the administration time of LIFE-H is a significant limitation, as it can lead to reduced attention and engagement, particularly in participants with cognitive or physical fatigue. To address this challenge, this study proposes a series of recommendations, including simplification of the assessment process through the prioritization of key items and implementation of adaptive testing methods to minimize the respondent burden. Additionally, the integration of interactive features into the digital version of the tool enhances participant engagement and streamlines data collection. Despite these limitations, the LIFE-H remains a crucial instrument for the evaluation of social participation, with the potential for further improvements to enhance its efficiency and usability.

The WHODAS 2.0 is an internationally standardized instrument that evaluates health conditions and disability across 36 items divided into six domains, including interpersonal interactions, cognition, self-care, life activities, mobility, and participation.99) WHODAS 2.0 was designed for cross-cultural and multilingual adaptability, enhancing its applicability.99) However, this requires assessor training and a structured system for data handling and analysis, particularly in large populations.100,101) For example, the Functioning Disability Evaluation Scale-Adult Version (FUNDES-Adult), derived from the WHODAS 2.0, was developed for use in Taiwan’s disability evaluation system to assess activity limitations and participation restrictions.100) The study validated FUNDES-Adult’s reliability (Cronbach's alpha, 0.89–0.97) and its five-factor structure for performance and capability dimensions, encompassing cognition, mobility, self-care, participation, and life activities. Notwithstanding its strengths, the instrument encountered limitations, including substantial ceiling and floor effects in certain domains as well as deficiencies in responses for culturally sensitive items. To address these concerns, the authors underscore the necessity of enhanced data management systems, rigorous evaluator training programs, and adaptations for diverse cultural contexts. The FUNDES-Adult demonstrates its utility; however, further research is imperative to enhance its usability and accuracy in large-scale disability assessments.

Finally, OSA assesses an individual’s ability to perform roles and the perceived importance of these roles.102) It is frequently used in client-centered occupational therapy and helps design personalized interventions.103,104) However, interpreting subjective results objectively for intervention purposes requires experience, and accurate assessment may be challenging if patients lack motivation or uncooperative during the evaluation.104,105) Jo and Kim105) evaluated the impact of home environment modifications and assistive device training, guided by the OSA framework, on occupational participation, self-awareness, and activity limitations in people with disabilities, compared to a standard home exercise program. The OSA-guided interventions significantly improved the time spent on ADLs and participants’ self-awareness of occupational competence. However, no significant reduction in activity limitation was observed in the intervention group, suggesting the need to combine environmental modifications with exercise programs to enhance their effectiveness. This study underscores the importance of the OSA framework in implementing client-centered approaches to promote occupational participation and self-awareness. The limitations of this study include its small sample size and the lack of long-term follow-up, emphasizing the need for further research to validate these findings and refine OSA-based interventions.

Table 3 summarizes the key features of EADL assessment tools, including their scoring methods, number of items, and specific applications for evaluating extended activities.

A summary of the principal characteristics of the extended activities of daily living

CURRENT CHALLENGES IN ADL EVALUATION

Accurate evaluation of ADL is critical for understanding an individual’s functional independence, identifying areas that require intervention, and formulating effective care plans. ADL assessment tools are essential instruments in clinical practice, rehabilitation, and public health to track functional changes over time and guide decision-making. Despite its importance, acknowledging the limitations of ADL assessment is essential. First, the cultural limitations of ADL tools have been demonstrated in studies such as Yen et al.100) This study highlighted the challenges associated with adapting the WHODAS 2.0 for non-Western populations, citing variations in daily activities and social norms as key factors. Second, subjectivity and variability in assessment outcomes, as noted by Almazan-Isla et al.,101) stem from the assessors’ experience and judgment, often leading to inconsistent results without adequate rater training. Third, environmental factors, such as lack of adequate home accessibility or family support, are often overlooked in traditional tools, but significantly impact functional performance Federici et al.99) Psychological factors, including depression and motivation, also play critical roles in ADL performance.106) However, traditional tools fail to assess these dimensions, limiting their utility in identifying barriers to daily functioning. Furthermore, the time-consuming nature of certain assessments such as the LIFE-H, as articulated by Desrosiers et al.,98) can lead to fatigue and diminished accuracy. This underscores the need for streamlined instruments that strike a balance between comprehensiveness and efficiency.

Digital technologies such as remote monitoring systems and virtual simulations are imperative for addressing the limitations of traditional tools, which are subjective and inconsistent. For instance, wearable sensors can monitor daily routines in real time, whereas smartphone applications can complement IADL evaluations by providing task-specific reminders and tracking adherence.107) Furthermore, virtual reality environments offer opportunities to simulate real-world scenarios, thereby enhancing the accuracy of social and occupational skill evaluations in EADL assessments.108) Multidisciplinary collaboration is vital to standardize evaluator training and harmonize scoring systems across diverse settings, as emphasized by the WHODAS 2.0 framework.100) Finally, it is imperative to acknowledge the influence of psychological and environmental factors on ADL evaluation. Depression, anxiety, and family support have been demonstrated to exert a substantial impact on ADL performance.104) The integration of complementary tools such as OSA, which emphasizes patient-centered feedback, is crucial for addressing these factors and enhancing the precision of ADL assessments. By integrating technological innovation, cultural adaptability, and comprehensive psychological assessments, evaluations of ADL, IADL, and EADL can become more precise, inclusive, and impactful.109)

FUTURE DIRECTIONS IN ADL EVALUATION

Emerging digital tools and online platforms are shaping the future of ADL assessment. Primary technologies poised for broader use include: wearable devices, smartphone applications, sensor-based systems, computerized assessment tools, virtual & augmented reality technologies, telehealth and remote monitoring systems, and AI & machine learning (ML)-based assessment tools. Each technology offers distinct features for evaluating ADL performance.109)

Wearable devices collect data on physical activity through sensors embedded in wearable technology such as wristbands, smartwatches, and smart glasses.110) These devices can track steps, distance, burned calories, heart rate, blood pressure, and sleep patterns, thereby providing a continuous overview of daily activity levels and health metrics.111,112) Wearable devices allow for constant monitoring and is user-friendly, as individuals can gather data simply by wearing the device.113) Wearable sensors have emerged as promising tools for monitoring bathroom activities among older adults, offering significant privacy advantages over traditional methods such as cameras and audio-based systems.110) Research indicates high accuracy in activity recognition, such as 95% for toileting. However, a limited number of studies and controlled experimental settings hinder their broader applicability. The challenges associated with these sensors include small sample sizes, lack of real-world testing, and complexity of multisensor systems, which can reduce user compliance. To address these limitations, future efforts should focus on large-scale real-world studies and the development of simplified, user-friendly devices optimized for long-term use. Additionally, integrating advanced ML algorithms can enhance the accuracy and scalability of wearable sensor applications in daily living environments.

Smartphone applications leverage smartphone sensors and features to help users monitor their functional status using self-assessment questionnaires and activity tracking.114) Functions include medication reminders, exercise goals, and activity prompts.107) Owing to the widespread use of smartphones, smartphone applications are highly accessible and offer easy connectivity to healthcare providers, thereby facilitating real-time communication.115) Roy et al.114) investigated the integration of smartphones and ambient sensors to enhance the recognition of ADLs in multi-inhabitant smart environments. The authors proposed a hybrid approach that utilizes smartphones for individual-specific microactivities and ambient sensors for location-specific data, achieving a 30% higher classification accuracy than methods that use smartphones exclusively. This study identifies challenges such as distinguishing activities in shared environments and ensuring computational efficiency in multi-user scenarios. This study underscores the necessity of integrating individual and environmental context data to enhance ADL classification. Future research should focus on refining activity recognition algorithms and leveraging additional smartphone sensors to facilitate more comprehensive data collection.

Sensor-based systems employ sensors and Internet of Things devices placed within the home to detect and evaluate user activities.116,117) Devices such as motion detectors, pressure sensors, door sensors, and electricity monitors, collect data on movement and activity patterns.118,119) Sensor-based systems enable non-intrusive monitoring, providing continuous data on daily activities and allowing for early detection of any irregularities without disrupting the user’s routine. Cahill et al.117) reported several key findings. First, the use of sensors to monitor residents’ physical activities, environment, and care delivery processes is recommended. Second, the system demonstrates the potential to improve daily life experiences by providing predictive risk management, real-time monitoring, and streamlined communication among residents, caregivers, and family members. Third, the study identifies challenges to be addressed, including ensuring user acceptability, maintaining privacy, and preventing a reduction in human interaction. To address these challenges, this study proposes the implementation of ethical guidelines, refinement of system design to enhance usability, and training of care staff to integrate technological solutions with person-centered care approaches.

Computerized assessment tools use digital platforms to assess ADL capabilities by simulating everyday tasks in a controlled, virtual environment.120) These assessments often focus on cognitive functions such as attention and memory by mimicking daily tasks.121,122) Computerized assessment tools provide objective, consistent evaluations that can be standardized, saved, and systematically analyzed, making it an efficient tool for longitudinal monitoring of ADL performance.123) The 2013 study on computerized adaptive testing (CAT) for assessing ADL presented a novel, efficient approach for evaluating functional independence in stroke outpatients.123) The CAT system was developed using an item bank of 44 ADL tasks and was later refined to 34 items after rigorous psychometric evaluation. The key findings include the following. First, the CAT demonstrated an average reliability of 0.93, exhibiting strong correlations with established measures such as the Barthel Index and the FAI. Second, the CAT required only one-fifth of the administration time of traditional methods. However, the study also identified two significant challenges: first, the CAT’s limited generalizability to inpatients and second, the need for broader cultural validation. To address these issues, future studies should expand the CAT’s application to diverse patient populations and incorporate items tailored to specific cultural contexts.

Virtual and augmented reality technologies create realistic environments for evaluating ADL performance in simulated settings.108,124) For instance, tasks such as shopping in a virtual grocery store can be used to assess skills relevant to behavioral training and cognitive rehabilitation.125,126) This method offers a risk-free environment and can be tailored to various scenarios, while the interactive and immersive design can enhance user motivation and engagement.127) Buele and Palacios-Navarro127) examined the potential of VR-based cognitive-motor interventions to support IADL in older adults with MCI or dementia. It highlights the potential of virtual reality to improve executive function, memory, and visuospatial orientation while fostering independence and quality of life. Key challenges include the need for personalized interventions tailored to the participants’ physical and cognitive conditions and addressing the digital divide for equitable access. Future applications should integrate adaptive task difficulties, provide real-time feedback, and ensure usability across diverse populations to enhance long-term engagement and effectiveness. This comprehensive approach has the potential to transform rehabilitation strategies for older adults by promoting independence and cognitive resilience.

Telehealth and remote monitoring systems utilize telecommunication technology to allow healthcare providers to remotely monitor and assess a patient’s ADL capabilities through video conferencing.128) This approach enables direct observation and guidance in performing daily activities with patient activity data shared with healthcare teams for evaluation and consultation.129) By eliminating geographic barriers, telehealth and remote-monitoring systems offer healthcare services without requiring frequent in-person visits, resulting in time and cost savings.130) The patient’s activity data can then be shared with a healthcare team for evaluation and consultation, thereby enabling the delivery of healthcare services without the constraints of distance and reducing the need for in-person visits. This approach has the potential to save both time and money.131,132) The study developed and evaluated a remote health monitoring system designed to prevent frailty and support physical activity (PA) in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients.129) The system, which included an app for patients and support staff, demonstrated a significant improvement in PA duration and daily steps for one participant, although the results varied across individuals. A key limitation was the reliance on manual data entry, which risks errors and incomplete data. To address this limitation, the integration of automated data collection tools such as advanced sensors and seamless connectivity features, was proposed. This approach can be complemented by providing tailored health education to enhance patient self-management. The findings underscore the reliability of personalized technology-enabled interventions in the management of chronic conditions while concurrently mitigating the risks associated with frailty.

AI and ML-based assessment tools apply AI to analyze ADL data, assess an individual’s functional abilities, and identify potential irregularities.133) AI and ML-based assessment tools can detect early signs of functional decline or risk factors, anticipate changes in functional status, and support preventive strategies.134-136) With the capacity to process extensive data efficiently, AI and ML-based assessment tools deliver precise assessments and assist in creating personalized intervention plans tailored to the individual’s unique characteristics.134,137) Graham et al.135) are investigating the application of AI, with a focus on ML and natural language processing, in predicting and detecting cognitive decline among the older adult population. AI techniques employ extensive datasets encompassing sociodemographic information, clinical assessments, and neuroimaging data to identify early indications of neurocognitive disorders. Although AI has exhibited reliable accuracy and scalability, it is confronted with challenges such as bias, ethical considerations, and interpretability. Addressing these challenges requires interdisciplinary collaboration, extensive data sets, and a clear regulatory framework. Additionally, enhancing clinician engagement and transparency in AI models can facilitate their integration into healthcare services and ensure ethical and equitable utilization.

Table 4 summarizes the contents of emerging digital tools and online platforms.

A summary of the content of emerging digital tools and online platforms

The use of digital tools and online platforms for ADL assessment offers several advantages. These technologies enhance objectivity by providing more accurate and data-driven evaluations than subjective assessments. Continuous monitoring enables real-time feedback, interactive features increase user engagement, and organized data management allows longitudinal analysis to identify trends. However, this study has some limitations. Privacy and security concerns arise because of the potential for unauthorized access to personal and health data, and technological accessibility gaps may hinder individuals who are less familiar with digital devices. Moreover, the high cost of some technologies can restrict accessibility, and the complexity of data interpretation requires specialized expertise.109,138) Despite these challenges, digital ADL assessment tools address several limitations inherent in traditional methods, enabling more accurate and efficient evaluations that ultimately contribute to enhancing individuals’ functional independence and quality of life.139)

CONCLUSION

This study emphasizes the critical role of ADL assessment tools in evaluating functional independence and guiding personalized care strategies. Despite their widespread use, the current tools exhibit limitations, including cultural biases, reliance on subjective judgment, and insufficient consideration of psychological and environmental factors. Our findings underscore the importance of addressing these challenges through technological advancements such as AI, remote monitoring systems, and sensor-based tools, which offer opportunities to enhance accuracy, inclusivity, and efficiency. The integration of multidisciplinary collaboration and culturally adaptive frameworks is recommended to enhance the relevance and impact of these tools. By aligning technological innovations with the diverse needs of populations, ADL assessments can evolve into powerful instruments for improving health outcomes, fostering independence, and enabling meaningful societal participation.

Notes

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

The researchers claim no conflicts of interest.

FUNDING

None.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

Conceptualization, SBL; Supervision, SBL; Writing-original draft, JHK; Writing-review & editing, SBL.

References

1. Pergolotti M, Sattar S. Measuring functional status of older adults with cancer with patient and performance-based measures, a how-to guide: a young society of geriatric oncology and nursing and allied health initiative. J Geriatr Oncol 2021;12:473–8. 10.1016/j.jgo.2020.09.025. 33051167.
2. Giebel CM, Sutcliffe C, Challis D. Activities of daily living and quality of life across different stages of dementia: a UK study. Aging Ment Health 2015;19:63–71. 10.1080/13607863.2014.915920. 24831511.
3. Millan-Calenti JC, Tubio J, Pita-Fernandez S, Gonzalez-Abraldes I, Lorenzo T, Fernandez-Arruty T, et al. Prevalence of functional disability in activities of daily living (ADL), instrumental activities of daily living (IADL) and associated factors, as predictors of morbidity and mortality. Arch Gerontol Geriatr 2010;50:306–10. 10.1016/j.archger.2009.04.017. 19520442.
4. Lifshitz H, Merrick J, Morad M. Health status and ADL functioning of older persons with intellectual disability: community residence versus residential care centers. Res Dev Disabil 2008;29:301–15. 10.1016/j.ridd.2007.06.005. 17618082.
5. Paterson DH, Warburton DE. Physical activity and functional limitations in older adults: a systematic review related to Canada’s Physical Activity Guidelines. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 2010;7:38. 10.1186/1479-5868-7-38. 20459782.
6. Bleich SN, Sherrod C, Chiang A, Boyd C, Wolff J, DuGoff E, Saet al. Systematic Review of programs treating high-need and high-cost people with multiple chronic diseases or disabilities in the United States, 2008-2014. Prev Chronic Dis 2015;12:E197. 10.5888/pcd12.150275. 26564013.
7. Gill TM. Assessment of function and disability in longitudinal studies. J Am Geriatr Soc 2010;58 Suppl 2:S308–12. 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2010.02914.x. 21029059.
8. Sidani S, Fox M. Patient-centered care: clarification of its specific elements to facilitate interprofessional care. J Interprof Care 2014;28:134–41. 10.3109/13561820.2013.862519. 24329714.
9. Majumder S, Mondal T, Deen MJ. Wearable sensors for remote health monitoring. Sensors (Basel) 2017;17:130. 10.3390/s17010130. 28085085.
10. Wang S, Bolling K, Mao W, Reichstadt J, Jeste D, Kim HC, et al. Technology to support aging in place: older adults’ perspectives. Healthcare (Basel) 2019;7:60. 10.3390/healthcare7020060. 30974780.
11. Covinsky KE, Palmer RM, Fortinsky RH, Counsell SR, Stewart AL, Kresevic D, et al. Loss of independence in activities of daily living in older adults hospitalized with medical illnesses: increased vulnerability with age. J Am Geriatr Soc 2003;51:451–8. 10.1046/j.1532-5415.2003.51152.x. 12657063.
12. Katz S, Akpom CA. A measure of primary sociobiological functions. Int J Health Serv 1976;6:493–508. 10.2190/uurl-2ryu-wryd-ey3k. 133997.
13. Carmona-Torres JM, Rodriguez-Borrego MA, Laredo-Aguilera JA, Lopez-Soto PJ, Santacruz-Salas E, Cobo-Cuenca AI. Disability for basic and instrumental activities of daily living in older individuals. PLoS One 2019;14e0220157. 10.1371/journal.pone.0220157. 31348797.
14. Verbrugge LM, Jette AM. The disablement process. Soc Sci Med 1994;38:1–14. 10.1016/0277-9536(94)90294-1. 8146699.
15. Lindeboom R, Vermeulen M, Holman R, De Haan RJ. Activities of daily living instruments: optimizing scales for neurologic assessments. Neurology 2003;60:738–42. 10.1212/01.wnl.0000044402.16315.fc. 12630419.
16. Lincoln NB, Gladman JR. The Extended Activities of Daily Living scale: a further validation. Disabil Rehabil 1992;14:41–3. 10.3109/09638289209166426. 1586760.
17. Katz S, Ford AB, Moskowitz RW, Jackson BA, Jaffe MW. Studies of illness in the aged. the index of ADL: a standardized measure of biological and psychosocial function. JAMA 1963;185:914–9. 10.1001/jama.1963.03060120024016. 14044222.
18. Cremer S, Vluggen S, Man-Van-Ginkel JM, Metzelthin SF, Zwakhalen SM, Bleijlevens MH. Effective nursing interventions in ADL care affecting independence and comfort: a systematic review. Geriatr Nurs 2023;52:73–90. 10.1016/j.gerinurse.2023.04.015. 37269607.
19. Stineman MG, Xie D, Pan Q, Kurichi JE, Saliba D, Streim J. Activity of daily living staging, chronic health conditions, and perceived lack of home accessibility features for elderly people living in the community. J Am Geriatr Soc 2011;59:454–62. 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2010.03287.x. 21361881.
20. Ikeda T, Suzuki T, Takagi M, Murakami M. Effect of early rehabilitation treatment on activities of daily living in patients receiving conservative treatment for vertebral compression fracture. Prog Rehabil Med 2021;6:20210049. 10.2490/prm.20210049. 34963904.
21. Ottenbacher KJ, Jannell S. The results of clinical trials in stroke rehabilitation research. Arch Neurol 1993;50:37–44. 10.1001/archneur.1993.00540010033014. 8418798.
22. Smyth J, Umapathysivam K, Hendrix I, Grantham H, Arendts G, Visvanathan R. Review article: roles of activities of daily living and frailty assessments for residents of residential aged care services in emergency department transfers: a scoping review. Emerg Med Australas 2022;34:675–86. 10.1111/1742-6723.14055. 35987952.
23. Oort Q, Taphoorn MJ, Sikkes SA, Uitdehaag BM, Reijneveld JC, Dirven L. Evaluation of the content coverage of questionnaires containing basic and instrumental activities of daily living (ADL) used in adult patients with brain tumors. J Neurooncol 2019;143:1–13. 10.1007/s11060-019-03136-9. 30887244.
24. Romero-Ayuso D, Castillero-Perea A, Gonzalez P, Navarro E, Molina-Masso JP, Funes MJ, et al. Assessment of cognitive instrumental activities of daily living: a systematic review. Disabil Rehabil 2021;43:1342–58. 10.1080/09638288.2019.1665720. 31549907.
25. Barberger-Gateau P, Fabrigoule C, Rouch I, Letenneur L, Dartigues JF. Neuropsychological correlates of self-reported performance in instrumental activities of daily living and prediction of dementia. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci 1999;54:P293–303. 10.1093/geronb/54b.5.p293. 10542822.
26. Marshall GA, Rentz DM, Frey MT, Locascio JJ, Johnson KA, Sperling RA, et al. Executive function and instrumental activities of daily living in mild cognitive impairment and Alzheimer’s disease. Alzheimers Dement 2011;7:300–8. 10.1016/j.jalz.2010.04.005. 21575871.
27. Ciro CA, Anderson MP, Hershey LA, Prodan CI, Holm MB. Instrumental activities of daily living performance and role satisfaction in people with and without mild cognitive impairment: a pilot project. Am J Occup Ther 2015;69:6903270020p1-10. 10.5014/ajot.2014.015198. 25871600.
28. Towle D. Use of the ‘extended activities of daily living scale’ with depressed stroke patients. Int Disabil Stud 1988;10:148–9. 10.3109/09638288809164063. 3235384.
29. Kelbling E, Ferreira Prescott D, Shearer M, Quinn TJ. An assessment of the content and properties of extended and instrumental activities of daily living scales: a systematic review. Disabil Rehabil 2024;46:1990–9. 10.1080/09638288.2023.2224082. 37415395.
30. Nouri FM, Lincoln NB. An extended activities of daily living scale for stroke patients. Clin Rehabil 1987;1:301–5. 10.1177/026921558700100409.
31. Williams N, Dodd S, Hardwick B, Clayton D, Edwards RT, Charles JM, et al. Protocol for a definitive randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation of a community-based rehabilitation programme following hip fracture: fracture in the elderly multidisciplinary rehabilitation-phase III (FEMuR III). BMJ Open 2020;10e039791. 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-039791. 33067298.
32. Mlinac ME, Feng MC. Assessment of activities of daily living, self-care, and independence. Arch Clin Neuropsychol 2016;31:506–16. 10.1093/arclin/acw049. 27475282.
33. Pincus T, Summey JA, Soraci SA Jr, Wallston KA, Hummon NP. Assessment of patient satisfaction in activities of daily living using a modified Stanford Health Assessment Questionnaire. Arthritis Rheum 1983;26:1346–53. 10.1002/art.1780261107. 6639693.
34. Williams BC, Fries BE, Foley WJ, Schneider D, Gavazzi M. Activities of daily living and costs in nursing homes. Health Care Financ Rev 1994;15:117–35. 10138481.
35. Gill TM, Robison JT, Tinetti ME. Predictors of recovery in activities of daily living among disabled older persons living in the community. J Gen Intern Med 1997;12:757–62. 10.1046/j.1525-1497.1997.07161.x. 9436895.
36. Bozo O, Guarnaccia CA. Activities of daily living, social support, and future health of older Americans. J Psychol 2010;144:1–14. 10.1080/00223980903356032. 20092067.
37. Gobbens RJ. Associations of ADL and IADL disability with physical and mental dimensions of quality of life in people aged 75 years and older. PeerJ 2018;6e5425. 10.7717/peerj.5425. 30123720.
38. Liao CC, Li CR, Lee SH, Liao WC, Liao MY, Lin J, et al. Social support and mortality among the aged people with major diseases or ADL disabilities in Taiwan: a national study. Arch Gerontol Geriatr 2015;60:317–21. 10.1016/j.archger.2014.11.007. 25481486.
39. Mathuranath PS, George A, Cherian PJ, Mathew R, Sarma PS. Instrumental activities of daily living scale for dementia screening in elderly people. Int Psychogeriatr 2005;17:461–74. 10.1017/s1041610205001547. 16252378.
40. Yokoya T, Demura S, Sato S. Relationships between physical activity, ADL capability and fall risk in community-dwelling Japanese elderly population. Environ Health Prev Med 2007;12:25–32. 10.1007/bf02898189. 21432078.
41. Azad A, Mohammadinezhad T, Taghizadeh G, Lajevardi L. Clinical assessment of activities of daily living in acute stroke: validation of the Persian version of Katz Index. Med J Islam Repub Iran 2017;31:30. 10.18869/mjiri.31.30. 29445659.
42. Blackwood J, Karczewski H, Huang MH, Pfalzer L. “Katz activities of daily living disability in older cancer survivors by age, stage, and cancer type”. J Cancer Surviv 2020;14:769–78. 10.1007/s11764-020-00891-x. 32472342.
43. Arik G, Varan HD, Yavuz BB, Karabulut E, Kara O, Kilic MK, et al. Validation of Katz index of independence in activities of daily living in Turkish older adults. Arch Gerontol Geriatr 2015;61:344–50. 10.1016/j.archger.2015.08.019. 26328478.
44. Rathnayake N, Karunadasa R, Abeygunasekara T, De Zoysa W, Palangasinghe D, Lekamwasam S. Katz index of activities of daily living in assessing functional status of older people: reliability and validity of Sinhala version. Dialogues Health 2023;2:100134. 10.1016/j.dialog.2023.100134. 38515463.
45. Ferretti-Rebustini RE, Balbinotti MA, Jacob-Filho W, Rebustini F, Suemoto CK, Pasqualucci CA, et al. Validity of the Katz Index to assess activities of daily living by informants in neuropathological studies. Rev Esc Enferm USP 2015;49:946–52. 10.1590/s0080-623420150000600010. 27419678.
46. Hsueh IP, Lin JH, Jeng JS, Hsieh CL. Comparison of the psychometric characteristics of the functional independence measure, 5 item Barthel index, and 10 item Barthel index in patients with stroke. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2002;73:188–90. 10.1136/jnnp.73.2.188. 12122181.
47. Cioncoloni D, Piu P, Tassi R, Acampa M, Guideri F, Taddei S, et al. Relationship between the modified Rankin Scale and the Barthel Index in the process of functional recovery after stroke. NeuroRehabilitation 2012;30:315–22. 10.3233/nre-2012-0761. 22672946.
48. Ohura T, Hase K, Nakajima Y, Nakayama T. Validity and reliability of a performance evaluation tool based on the modified Barthel Index for stroke patients. BMC Med Res Methodol 2017;17:131. 10.1186/s12874-017-0409-2. 28841846.
49. Bouwstra H, Smit EB, Wattel EM, van der Wouden JC, Hertogh CM, Terluin B, et al. Measurement properties of the Barthel index in geriatric rehabilitation. J Am Med Dir Assoc 2019;20:420–5. 10.1016/j.jamda.2018.09.033. 30448338.
50. Roedl KJ, Wilson LS, Fine J. A systematic review and comparison of functional assessments of community-dwelling elderly patients. J Am Assoc Nurse Pract 2016;28:160–9. 10.1002/2327-6924.12273. 25964008.
51. Hartigan I. A comparative review of the Katz ADL and the Barthel Index in assessing the activities of daily living of older people. Int J Older People Nurs 2007;2:204–12. 10.1111/j.1748-3743.2007.00074.x. 20925877.
52. Yi Y, Ding L, Wen H, Wu J, Makimoto K, Liao X. Is Barthel Index suitable for assessing activities of daily living in patients with dementia? Front Psychiatry 2020;11:282. 10.3389/fpsyt.2020.00282. 32457659.
53. Ottenbacher KJ, Hsu Y, Granger CV, Fiedler RC. The reliability of the functional independence measure: a quantitative review. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1996;77:1226–32. 10.1016/s0003-9993(96)90184-7. 8976303.
54. Wallace D, Duncan PW, Lai SM. Comparison of the responsiveness of the Barthel Index and the motor component of the Functional Independence Measure in stroke: the impact of using different methods for measuring responsiveness. J Clin Epidemiol 2002;55:922–8. 10.1016/s0895-4356(02)00410-9. 12393081.
55. McPherson KM, Pentland B, Cudmore SF, Prescott RJ. An inter-rater reliability study of the Functional Assessment Measure (FIM+FAM). Disabil Rehabil 1996;18:341–7. 10.3109/09638289609165892. 8799674.
56. Wu Y, Wang J, Wang C, Chen M, Dong H. Construction and application of a home exercise rehabilitation management program for elderly stroke patients based on the Functional Independence Measure score. J Clin Neurosci 2024;126:265–9. 10.1016/j.jocn.2024.07.002. 38986337.
57. Adams BE, Tunis SL, Edell WS. Assessing antipsychotic effectiveness in dementia with the factor structure of the Psychogeriatric Dependency Rating Scale (PGDRS). J Am Med Dir Assoc 2003;4:61–6. 10.1016/s1525-8610(04)70277-7. 12807576.
58. Tunis SL, Edell WS, Adams BE, Kennedy JS. Characterizing behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia (BPSD) among geropsychiatric inpatients. J Am Med Dir Assoc 2002;3:146–51. 10.1016/s1525-8610(04)70457-0. 12807658.
59. Wilkinson IM, Graham-White J. Psychogeriatric dependency rating scales (PGDRS): a method of assessment for use by nurses. Br J Psychiatry 1980;137:558–65. 10.1192/bjp.137.6.558. 6452189.
60. Samus QM, Mayer L, Onyike CU, Brandt J, Baker A, McNabney M, et al. Correlates of functional dependence among recently admitted assisted living residents with and without dementia. J Am Med Dir Assoc 2009;10:323–9. 10.1016/j.jamda.2009.01.004. 19497544.
61. Lee YJ, Johnston DM, Reuland M, Lyketsos CG, Samus Q, Amjad H. Reasons for hospitalization while receiving dementia care coordination through maximizing independence at home. J Am Med Dir Assoc 2022;23:1573–8. 10.1016/j.jamda.2021.12.044. 35150611.
62. Gold DA. An examination of instrumental activities of daily living assessment in older adults and mild cognitive impairment. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol 2012;34:11–34. 10.1080/13803395.2011.614598. 22053873.
63. Siriwardhana DD, Walters K, Rait G, Bazo-Alvarez JC, Weerasinghe MC. Cross-cultural adaptation and psychometric evaluation of the Sinhala version of Lawton Instrumental Activities of Daily Living Scale. PLoS One 2018;13e0199820. 10.1371/journal.pone.0199820. 29953501.
64. Bouça-Machado R, Fernandes A, Ranzato C, Beneby D, Nzwalo H, Ferreira JJ. Measurement tools to assess activities of daily living in patients with Parkinson’s disease: a systematic review. Front Neurosci 2022;16:945398. 10.3389/fnins.2022.945398. 35992900.
65. Chen HM, Lin HF, Huang MF, Chang CW, Yeh YC, Lo YC, et al. Validation of Taiwan Performance-based Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (TPIADL), a performance- based measurement of instrumental activities of daily living for patients with vascular cognitive impairment. PLoS One 2016;11e0166546. 10.1371/journal.pone.0166546. 27851810.
66. Kraal AZ, Massimo L, Fletcher E, Carrion CI, Medina LD, Mungas D, et al. Functional reserve: The residual variance in instrumental activities of daily living not explained by brain structure, cognition, and demographics. Neuropsychology 2021;35:19–32. 10.1037/neu0000705. 33393797.
67. Ryu HJ, Moon Y. Gender differences in items of the instrumental activities of daily living in mild cognitive impairment and Alzheimer’s disease dementia. Dement Neurocogn Disord 2024;23:107–14. 10.12779/dnd.2024.23.2.107. 38720826.
68. Hall JR, Vo HT, Johnson LA, Barber RC, O’Bryant SE. The link between cognitive measures and ADLs and IADL functioning in mild Alzheimer’s: what has gender got to do with it? Int J Alzheimers Dis 2011;2011:276734. 10.4061/2011/276734. 21660245.
69. Karagiozis H, Gray S, Sacco J, Shapiro M, Kawas C. The Direct Assessment of Functional Abilities (DAFA): a comparison to an indirect measure of instrumental activities of daily living. Gerontologist 1998;38:113–21. 10.1093/geront/38.1.113. 9499659.
70. Merritt BK. Validity of using the Assessment of Motor and Process Skills to determine the need for assistance. Am J Occup Ther 2011;65:643–50. 10.5014/ajot.2011.000547. 22214108.
71. Darragh AR, Sample PL, Fisher AG. Environment effect of functional task performance in adults with acquired brain injuries: use of the assessment of motor and process skills. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1998;79:418–23. 10.1016/s0003-9993(98)90143-5. 9552108.
72. Potashman M, Pang M, Tahir M, Shahraz S, Dichter S, Perneczky R, et al. Psychometric properties of the Alzheimer’s Disease Cooperative Study: Activities of Daily Living for Mild Cognitive Impairment (ADCS-MCI-ADL) scale: a post hoc analysis of the ADCS ADC-008 trial. BMC Geriatr 2023;23:124. 10.1186/s12877-022-03527-0. 36879199.
73. Galasko D, Bennett DA, Sano M, Marson D, Kaye J, Edland SD, et al. ADCS Prevention Instrument Project: assessment of instrumental activities of daily living for community-dwelling elderly individuals in dementia prevention clinical trials. Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord 2006;20(4 Suppl 3):S152–69. 10.1097/01.wad.0000213873.25053.2b. 17135809.
74. Pedrosa H, De Sa A, Guerreiro M, Maroco J, Simoes MR, Galasko D, et al. Functional evaluation distinguishes MCI patients from healthy elderly people: the ADCS/MCI/ADL scale. J Nutr Health Aging 2010;14:703–9. 10.1007/s12603-010-0102-1. 20922349.
75. Kahle-Wrobleski K, Coley N, Lepage B, Cantet C, Vellas B, Andrieu S, et al. Understanding the complexities of functional ability in Alzheimer’s disease: more than just basic and instrumental factors. Curr Alzheimer Res 2014;11:357–66. 10.2174/1567205011666140317101419. 24635843.
76. Green J, Forster A, Young J. A test-retest reliability study of the Barthel Index, the Rivermead Mobility Index, the Nottingham Extended Activities of Daily Living Scale and the Frenchay Activities Index in stroke patients. Disabil Rehabil 2001;23:670–6. 10.1080/09638280110045382. 11720117.
77. Harwood RH, Ebrahim S. A comparison of the responsiveness of the Nottingham extended activities of daily living scale, London handicap scale and SF-36. Disabil Rehabil 2000;22:786–93. 10.1080/09638280050200287. 11194619.
78. Forster A, Dickerson J, Young J, Patel A, Kalra L, Nixon J, et al. A structured training programme for caregivers of inpatients after stroke (TRACS): a cluster randomised controlled trial and cost-effectiveness analysis. Lancet 2013;382:2069–76. 10.1016/s0140-6736(13)61603-7. 24054816.
79. Chen HF, Wu CY, Lin KC, Chen CL, Huang PC, Hsieh CJ, et al. Rasch validation of a combined measure of basic and extended daily life functioning after stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2013;27:125–32. 10.1177/1545968312457828. 22941671.
80. Sarker SJ, Rudd AG, Douiri A, Wolfe CD. Comparison of 2 extended activities of daily living scales with the Barthel Index and predictors of their outcomes: cohort study within the South London Stroke Register (SLSR). Stroke 2012;43:1362–9. 10.1161/strokeaha.111.645234. 22461336.
81. Monteiro M, Maso I, Sasaki AC, Barreto N Neto, Oliveira J Filho, Pinto EB. Validation of the Frenchay activity index on stroke victims. Arq Neuropsiquiatr 2017;75:167–71. 10.1590/0004-282x20170014. 28355324.
82. Wade DT, Legh-Smith J, Langton Hewer R. Social activities after stroke: measurement and natural history using the Frenchay Activities Index. Int Rehabil Med 1985;7:176–81. 10.3109/03790798509165991. 4093249.
83. Schuling J, de Haan R, Limburg M, Groenier KH. The Frenchay Activities Index. Assessment of functional status in stroke patients. Stroke 1993;24:1173–7. 10.1161/01.str.24.8.1173. 8342192.
84. Post MW, de Witte LP. Good inter-rater reliability of the Frenchay Activities Index in stroke patients. Clin Rehabil 2003;17:548–52. 10.1191/0269215503cr648oa. 12952162.
85. McColl MA, Davies D, Carlson P, Johnston J, Minnes P. The community integration measure: development and preliminary validation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2001;82:429–34. 10.1053/apmr.2001.22195. 11295000.
86. Lee H, Lee Y, Choi H, Pyun SB. Community integration and quality of life in aphasia after stroke. Yonsei Med J 2015;56:1694–702. 10.3349/ymj.2015.56.6.1694. 26446656.
87. Burleigh SA, Farber RS, Gillard M. Community integration and life satisfaction after traumatic brain injury: long-term findings. Am J Occup Ther 1998;52:45–52. 10.5014/ajot.52.1.45. 9426858.
88. Hanks RA, Rapport LJ, Millis SR, Deshpande SA. Measures of executive functioning as predictors of functional ability and social integration in a rehabilitation sample. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1999;80:1030–7. 10.1016/s0003-9993(99)90056-4. 10489004.
89. Gerber GJ, Gargaro J, McMackin S. Community integration and health-related quality-of-life following acquired brain injury for persons living at home. Brain Inj 2016;30:1552–60. 10.1080/02699052.2016.1199896. 27564085.
90. Hitzig SL, Romero Escobar EM, Noreau L, Craven BC. Validation of the Reintegration to Normal Living Index for community-dwelling persons with chronic spinal cord injury. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2012;93:108–14. 10.1016/j.apmr.2011.07.200. 22200389.
91. Bourdeau I, Desrosiers J, Gosselin S. Predictors of reintegration to normal living in older adults discharged from an intensive rehabilitation program. Int J Rehabil Res 2008;31:267–74. 10.1097/mrr.0b013e3282fc0ff2.
92. Demirdel S, Bayramlar K. Reliability and validity of the Turkish reintegration to normal living index in amputees. OTJR (Thorofare N J) 2020;40:151–8. 10.1177/1539449220905794. 32065068.
93. Wood-Dauphinee S, Williams JI. Reintegration to Normal Living as a proxy to quality of life. J Chronic Dis 1987;40:491–502. 10.1016/0021-9681(87)90005-1. 3597654.
94. Okoye EC, Oyedum SO, Akosile CO, Onwuakagba IU, Ibikunle PO, Okonkwo UP, et al. Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the reintegration to normal living index into IGBO language among individuals with mobility disability. J Patient Rep Outcomes 2019;3:40. 10.1186/s41687-019-0139-9. 31300968.
95. Fougeyrollas P, Noreau L, Bergeron H, Cloutier R, Dion SA, St-Michel G. Social consequences of long term impairments and disabilities: conceptual approach and assessment of handicap. Int J Rehabil Res 1998;21:127–41. 10.1097/00004356-199806000-00002. 9924676.
96. Noreau L, Lepage C, Boissiere L, Picard R, Fougeyrollas P, Mathieu J, et al. Measuring participation in children with disabilities using the Assessment of Life Habits. Dev Med Child Neurol 2007;49:666–71. 10.1111/j.1469-8749.2007.00666.x. 17718822.
97. Goh HT, Ramachandram K, Ahmad-Fauzi A, Subamanian P. Test-Retest Reliability and Validity of the Malay Version Life Habits Assessment (LIFE-H 3.1) to Measure Social Participation in Adults With Physical Disabilities. J Geriatr Phys Ther 2016;39:132–9. 10.1519/jpt.0000000000000064. 26288234.
98. Desrosiers J, Noreau L, Robichaud L, Fougeyrollas P, Rochette A, Viscogliosi C. Validity of the Assessment of Life Habits in older adults. J Rehabil Med 2004;36:177–82. 10.1080/16501970410027485. 15370734.
99. Federici S, Bracalenti M, Meloni F, Luciano JV. World Health Organization disability assessment schedule 2.0: an international systematic review. Disabil Rehabil 2017;39:2347–80. 10.1080/09638288.2016.1223177.
100. Yen CF, Hwang AW, Liou TH, Chiu TY, Hsu HY, Chi WC, et al. Validity and reliability of the Functioning Disability Evaluation Scale-Adult Version based on the WHODAS 2.0: 36 items. J Formos Med Assoc 2014;113:839–49. 10.1016/j.jfma.2014.08.008. 25294100.
101. Almazan-Isla J, Comin-Comin M, Damian J, Alcalde-Cabero E, Ruiz C, Franco E, et al. Analysis of disability using WHODAS 2.0 among the middle-aged and elderly in Cinco Villas, Spain. Disabil Health J 2014;7:78–87. 10.1016/j.dhjo.2013.08.004. 24411511.
102. Siguroardottir M, Fenger K, Schwartz AE. Psychometric testing of the Icelandic Occupational Self-Assessment (OSA-IS). Scand J Occup Ther 2023;30:771–81. 10.1080/11038128.2022.2074537. 35588247.
103. Mendes PV, Carrijo DC, Costa JD, Popova ES, Baron KB, Cruz DM. Cross-cultural adaptation, reliability, and convergent validity of occupational self-assessment for Brazilian Portuguese. OTJR (Thorofare N J) 2024;44:148–56. 10.1177/15394492231188614. 37586012.
104. Pan AW, Chung L, Chen TJ, Hsiung PC. The study of the validity and reliability of the Occupational Self-Assessment-traditional Chinese version. Hong Kong J Occup Ther 2020;33:18–24. 10.1177/1569186120930300. 33815020.
105. Jo YJ, Kim H. Effects of the model of human occupation-based home modifications on the time use, occupational participation and activity limitation in people with disabilities: a pilot randomized controlled trial. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol 2022;17:127–33. 10.1080/17483107.2020.1768306. 32448015.
106. Mathiowetz NA, Lair TJ. Getting better?: change or error in the measurement of functional limitations. J Econ Soc Meas 1994;20:237–62. 10.3233/jem-1994-20305.
107. Mira JJ, Navarro I, Botella F, Borras F, Nuno-Solinis R, Orozco D, et al. A Spanish pillbox app for elderly patients taking multiple medications: randomized controlled trial. J Med Internet Res 2014;16e99. 10.2196/jmir.3269. 24705022.
108. Buele J, Varela-Aldas JL, Palacios-Navarro G. Virtual reality applications based on instrumental activities of daily living (iADLs) for cognitive intervention in older adults: a systematic review. J Neuroeng Rehabil 2023;20:168. 10.1186/s12984-023-01292-8. 38110970.
109. Mois G, Rogers WA. Developing a framework for digital activities of daily living. Gerontologist 2024;64:gnae110. 10.1093/geront/gnae110. 39163564.
110. Zhang Y, D’Haeseleer I, Coelho J, Vanden Abeele V, Vanrumste B. Recognition of bathroom activities in older adults using wearable sensors: a systematic review and recommendations. Sensors (Basel) 2021;21:2176. 10.3390/s21062176. 33804626.
111. Wu J, Feng Y, Sun P. Sensor fusion for recognition of activities of daily living. Sensors (Basel) 2018;18:4029. 10.3390/s18114029. 30463199.
112. Patel S, Park H, Bonato P, Chan L, Rodgers M. A review of wearable sensors and systems with application in rehabilitation. J Neuroeng Rehabil 2012;9:21. 10.1186/1743-0003-9-21. 22520559.
113. Pires IM, Garcia NM, Pombo N, Florez-Revuelta F. From data acquisition to data fusion: a comprehensive review and a roadmap for the identification of activities of daily living using mobile devices. Sensors (Basel) 2016;16:184. 10.3390/s16020184. 26848664.
114. Roy N, Misra A, Cook D. Ambient and smartphone sensor assisted ADL recognition in multi-inhabitant smart environments. J Ambient Intell Humaniz Comput 2016;7:1–19. 10.1007/s12652-015-0294-7. 27042240.
115. Wei L, Wang SJ. Motion tracking of daily living and physical activities in health care: systematic review from designers’ perspective. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2024;12e46282. 10.2196/46282. 38709547.
116. Geraedts HA, Zijlstra W, Van Keeken HG, Zhang W, Stevens M. Validation and user evaluation of a sensor-based method for detecting mobility-related activities in older adults. PLoS One 2015;10e0137668. 10.1371/journal.pone.0137668.
117. Cahill J, Portales R, McLoughin S, Nagan N, Henrichs B, Wetherall S. IoT/sensor-based infrastructures promoting a sense of home, independent living, comfort and wellness. Sensors (Basel) 2019;19:485. 10.3390/s19030485. 30682864.
118. Chung J, Demiris G, Thompson HJ, Chen KY, Burr R, Patel S, et al. Feasibility testing of a home-based sensor system to monitor mobility and daily activities in Korean American older adults. Int J Older People Nurs 2017;12e12127. 10.1111/opn.12127.
119. Matsui T, Onishi K, Misaki S, Fujimoto M, Suwa H, Yasumoto K. SALON: Simplified Sensing System for Activity of Daily Living in Ordinary Home. Sensors (Basel) 2020;20:4895. 10.3390/s20174895. 32872516.
120. Chien TW, Wu HM, Wang WC, Castillo RV, Chou W. Reduction in patient burdens with graphical computerized adaptive testing on the ADL scale: tool development and simulation. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2009;7:39. 10.1186/1477-7525-7-39. 19416521.
121. Chiang VC, Lo KH, Choi KS. Rehabilitation of activities of daily living in virtual environments with intuitive user interface and force feedback. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol 2017;12:672–80. 10.1080/17483107.2016.1218554.
122. Romero-Ayuso D, Cuerda C, Morales C, Tesoriero R, Trivino-Juarez JM, Segura-Fragoso A, et al. Activities of daily living and categorization skills of elderly with cognitive deficit: a preliminary study. Brain Sci 2021;11:213. 10.3390/brainsci11020213. 33578677.
123. Hsueh IP, Chen JH, Wang CH, Hou WH, Hsieh CL. Development of a computerized adaptive test for assessing activities of daily living in outpatients with stroke. Phys Ther 2013;93:681–93. 10.2522/ptj.20120173. 23329557.
124. Leong SC, Tang YM, Toh FM, Fong KN. Examining the effectiveness of virtual, augmented, and mixed reality (VAMR) therapy for upper limb recovery and activities of daily living in stroke patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Neuroeng Rehabil 2022;19:93. 10.1186/s12984-022-01071-x. 36002898.
125. Grewal J, Eng JJ, Sakakibara BM, Schmidt J. The use of virtual reality for activities of daily living rehabilitation after brain injury: a scoping review. Aust Occup Ther J 2024;71:868–93. 10.1111/1440-1630.12957. 38757659.
126. Catania V, Rundo F, Panerai S, Ferri R. Virtual reality for the rehabilitation of acquired cognitive disorders: a narrative review. Bioengineering (Basel) 2023;11:35. 10.3390/bioengineering11010035. 38247912.
127. Buele J, Palacios-Navarro G. Cognitive-motor interventions based on virtual reality and instrumental activities of daily living (iADL): an overview. Front Aging Neurosci 2023;15:1191729. 10.3389/fnagi.2023.1191729. 37396651.
128. Saragih ID, Tarihoran DE, Batubara SO, Tzeng HM, Lin CJ. Effects of telehealth interventions on performing activities of daily living and maintaining balance in stroke survivors: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled studies. J Clin Nurs 2022;31:2678–90. 10.1111/jocn.16142. 34873756.
129. Ohashi C, Akiguchi S, Ohira M. Development of a remote health monitoring system to prevent frailty in elderly home-care patients with COPD. Sensors (Basel) 2022;22:2670. 10.3390/s22072670. 35408284.
130. Gately ME, Metcalf EE, Waller DE, McLaren JE, Chamberlin ES, Hawley CE, et al. Caregiver support role in occupational therapy video telehealth: a scoping review. Top Geriatr Rehabil 2023;39:253–65. 10.1097/tgr.0000000000000409. 37901356.
131. Wu X, Freeman S, Miyagi M, Park U, Nomura K, Ebihara S. Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment in the era of telemedicine. Geriatr Gerontol Int 2024;24 Suppl 1:67–73. 10.1111/ggi.14705. 37846612.
132. Bendixen RM, Levy CE, Olive ES, Kobb RF, Mann WC. Cost effectiveness of a telerehabilitation program to support chronically ill and disabled elders in their homes. Telemed J E Health 2009;15:31–8. 10.1089/tmj.2008.0046. 19199845.
133. Gonzalez-Castro A, Leiros-Rodriguez R, Prada-Garcia C, Benitez-Andrades JA. The applications of artificial intelligence for assessing fall risk: systematic review. J Med Internet Res 2024;26e54934. 10.2196/54934. 38684088.
134. Onthoni DD, Sahoo PK. Artificial-intelligence-assisted activities of daily living recognition for elderly in smart home. Electronics 2022;11:4129. 10.3390/electronics11244129.
135. Graham SA, Lee EE, Jeste DV, Van Patten R, Twamley EW, Nebeker C, et al. Artificial intelligence approaches to predicting and detecting cognitive decline in older adults: a conceptual review. Psychiatry Res 2020;284:112732. 10.1016/j.psychres.2019.112732. 31978628.
136. Lin WY, Chen CH, Tseng YJ, Tsai YT, Chang CY, Wang HY, et al. Predicting post-stroke activities of daily living through a machine learning-based approach on initiating rehabilitation. Int J Med Inform 2018;111:159–64. 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2018.01.002. 29425627.
137. Li X. Evaluation and analysis of elderly mental health based on artificial intelligence. Occup Ther Int 2023;2023:7077568. 10.1155/2023/7077568. 36817324.
138. Camp N, Lewis M, Hunter K, Johnston J, Zecca M, Di Nuovo A, et al. Technology used to recognize activities of daily living in community-dwelling older adults. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2020;18:163. 10.3390/ijerph18010163. 33379319.
139. Lussier M, Adam S, Chikhaoui B, Consel C, Gagnon M, Gilbert B, et al. Smart home technology: a new approach for performance measurements of activities of daily living and prediction of mild cognitive impairment in older adults. J Alzheimers Dis 2019;68:85–96. 10.3233/jad-180652. 30775978.

Article information Continued

Table 1.

A summary of the principal characteristics of the basic activities of daily living assessment tools

Assessment tool Number of items Scoring method Key features
Katz Index 6 1 for a “Yes” and 0 for a “No”; 6=full function, 4=moderate impairment, 2 or less=sever functional impairment Simple and quick to administer, limited sensitivity to cultural differences
Barthel Index 10 A number of points of each item, 0–15; final score (100)=summing the points awarded to each functional skill; higher score=more independent; lower score=more dependent Widely used in rehabilitation, tracks functional changes through item-specific scores
FIM 18 7-point Likert scale (1=total assistance in all areas, 7=total independence in all areas); 18 (lowest) to 126 (highest) Comprehensive evaluation including physical and cognitive functions, time-consuming due to many items
PGDRS Behavior: 16 Orientation: 10 questions (yes or no); 3 point scale for items; a higher score indicates a higher level of mental dysfunction Suitable for assessing dependency in older adults and individuals with psychiatric conditions, evaluates physical and behavioral aspects separately
Physical capacity: 7 sub-categories

FIM, Functional Independence Measure; PGDRS, Psychogeriatric Dependency Rating Scale.

Table 2.

A summary of the features and scoring methods of commonly utilized instruments for the assessment of instrumental activities of daily living

Assessment tool Number of items Scoring method Key features
Lawton-Brody IADL Scale 8 Dependence/Independence; 0 (dependent) to 8 (independent) scale) Evaluates tasks such as telephone use, shopping, and medication management; widely used for older adults but may require cultural adaptations
DAFA 10 Total score (0–30); 0 (independent functioning) to 3 (dependent functioning) Directly observes task performance in real-world scenarios; provides reliable and objective data but can be time-intensive and resource-dependent
AMPS 16 motor and 20 process skill items 1 (no problem) to 6 (inordinate; cannot test) Analyzes detailed ADL performance to support personalized intervention planning; requires specialized assessor training and cultural adaptation
ADCS-ADL 23 Caregiver-reported scoring; total score 0–78; lower score indicating greater severity Designed for individuals with dementia, focuses on independence in tasks like meal preparation and financial management; sensitive to early-stage dementia

Lawton-Brody IADL scale, Lawton-Brody instrumental activities of daily living scale; DAFA, Direct Assessment of Functional Abilities; AMPS, Assessment of Motor and Process Skills; ADCS-ADL, Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study-activities of daily living scale.

Table 3.

A summary of the principal characteristics of the extended activities of daily living

Assessment tool Number of items Scoring method Key features
NEADL 22 Range of 0–22 (higher scores representing better function) Assesses functional independence and social participation; may face self-report bias and challenges for patients with cognitive impairments.
FAI 15 0 (inactive) to 45 (very active); 0–3 scoring system for each item Evaluates social and leisure activities primarily used or stroke patients but limited in generalizability to other populations.
CIQ 15 Range of 0–29 (higher scores indicating a greater degree of community integration); most items (0–2), 1 item (0–4), and 1 item (0–5) Focus on community integration and role participation, designed for TBI patients, requiring cognitive ability to interpret complex items.
RNLI 11 Adjusted score = (total score/110) × 100; total score indicates a sum of all 11 items; minimum score=0, maximum score=100 Measures reintegration into daily life; addresses social, physical, and psychological dimensions but is prone to self-report bias.
LIFE-H 12 dominants Total score for each life habit dominant range 0–10 Comprehensive evaluation of life habits and social engagement, applicable across age groups, but assessment is time intensive.
WHODAS 2.0 36 Step 1, Summing of recoded item scores within each domain; Step 2, Summing of all six domain scores.; Step 3, Converting the summary score into a metric ranging from 0 to 100 (0=no disability, 100=full disability); each score range of 1–5 Standardized, cross-cultural tool that evaluates functioning in cognition, mobility, self-care, interpersonal relationships, life activities, and participation; requires trained assessors for accurate interpretation.
OSA 12 Total competence score range of 0–48; value score range of 0–36 Emphasizes the importance and performance of activities in daily life; client-centered and useful for personalized interventions, but subjective scoring may require professional interpretation.

NEADL, Nottingham Extended Activities of Daily Living Scale; FAI, Frenchay Activities Index; CIQ, Community Integration Questionnaire; RNLI, Reintegration to Normal Living Index; LIFE-H, Assessment of Life Habits; WHODAS 2.0, WHO Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0; OSA, Occupational Self-Assessment; TBI, traumatic brain injury

Table 4.

A summary of the content of emerging digital tools and online platforms

Technology/Approach Key features Advantages Limitations
Wearable devices Tracks physical activity (steps, calories, heart rate) through wearable sensors Continuous monitoring, user-friendly, real-time data collection High cost, privacy concerns, and requires user adherence
Smartphone applications Leverages smartphone features for self-assessment, reminders, and activity tracking Highly accessible, facilitates communication with healthcare providers. Privacy concerns and usability challenges for older adults
Sensor-based systems Uses IoT devices (motion, pressure, door sensors) to monitor daily activities at home Non-intrusive monitoring, detects irregularities early Requires facility setup and may be costly
Computerized assessment tools Simulates ADL tasks in virtual environments for objective and standardized evaluations Objective, consistent evaluations, suitable for longitudinal monitoring Complex interpretation, requires training and expertise
Virtual and augmented reality Creates realistic, interactive environments for training and evaluation Risk-free and engaging, enhances user motivation Potential accessibility challenges, high setup costs
Telehealth and remote monitoring Enables remote observation and consultation via video and real-time data sharing Reduces costs and saves time, eliminates geographic barriers Relies on stable internet, privacy concerns, and caregiver involvement
Artificial intelligence and machine learning Analyzes ADL data to detect patterns, predict decline, and recommend interventions Processes large datasets efficiently, enabling precise and personalized plans Data privacy issues, requires advanced infrastructure and technical expertise

ADL, activities of daily living.