Rehabilitation Measures
  1. Rehabilitation Measures Database
  2. Physical Activity Scale for the Elderly

Physical Activity Scale for the Elderly

Last Updated

Purpose

The PASE measures the level of self-reported physical activity in individuals aged 65 years or older and is comprised of items regarding occupational, household, and leisure activities during the previous 7-day period.

Link to Instrument

Instrument Details

Acronym PASE

Area of Assessment

Activities of Daily Living
Life Participation
Occupational Performance

Assessment Type

Patient Reported Outcomes

Cost

Free

Diagnosis/Conditions

  • Arthritis + Joint Conditions
  • Stroke Recovery

Populations

Stroke
Parkinson's Disease
Osteoarthritis
Older Adults and Geriatric Care
Non-Specific Patient Population
Mixed Populations
Limb Loss and Amputation
Joint Pain and Fractures
Intellectual Disability
Cancer

Key Descriptions

  • It consists of 12 questions regarding the frequency and duration of leisure activity (e.g., sports, jogging, swimming, strengthening and endurance exercise), household activity, and work-related activity during the previous 7-day period.
  • Can be administered by telephone, mail or in-person. The questions are scored differently.
  • Participation in leisure-time and strengthening activities are scored as :
    1) never
    2) seldom (1-2 days per week)
    3) sometimes (3-4 days per week)
    4) often (5-7 days per week)
  • Duration of these activities is scored as:
    A) less than 1 hour
    B) 1-2 hours
    C) 2-4 hours
    D) more than 4 hours
  • Household and work related activities are scored as yes or no. In work related activities, paid or unpaid work is scored in hours/week.
  • The total PASE score is computed by multiplying either the time spent in each activity (hours per week) or participation (i.e., yes/no) in an activity, by empirically derived item weights and then summing overall activities.
  • The overall PASE score ranges from 0 to 400 or more.
  • The instructions for use and scoring are provided in the PASE Administration and Scoring Manual. Questions regarding permissions for use and purchase can be sent to Media@HealthCore.com

Number of Items

12

Time to Administer

Less than 5 minutes

Required Training

No Training

Age Ranges

Elderly adult

65 +

years

Instrument Reviewers

Initially reviewed by Madawi Alotaibi PT, MHS in 10/2012. Updated 2/2016 by Alexander Yant, OTS; Kate Ibara, OTS; Emily Swiderski, OTS. Updated 11/2024 by Brianna Archibald, SPT; Madison Colombo, SPT; Josh Costomiris, SPT; Michael Fonte, SPT; Michael King, SPT; Leah Lopez, SPT; Taylor Marchese, SPT; Katriel Marquez, SPT; Juliana Samual, SPT; Jaden Tinio, SPT; Lauren Williamson, SPT; & Jeana Zito, SPT under the direction of Angela Lis, PT, PhD.

 

ICF Domain

Activity
Participation

Measurement Domain

Activities of Daily Living
General Health

Considerations

  • PASE identifies the level of physical activity in elderly.
  • Easy to administer scale.
  • PASE can be used for a younger age group.
  • The highest score of PASE is in the age group 50-64 for younger people and above 65 for elderly.
  • Translated and validated in a variety of languages such as Japanese, Chinese, Turkish, and Igbo.
  • Lack of information about MCID, cut-off scores, interrater/intrarater reliability, and responsiveness.
  • Construct validity is adequate to moderate in populations with COPD, Parkinson's, and osteoarthritis. Construct validity is primarily poor-adequate for lower-limb amputees and other conditions.
  • Evidence suggests that the PASE overestimates gender-specific tasks in regards to weighing task values. Specifically, the study mentioned women’s physical activity as compared to men, due to an incorrect weighing of heavy housework and caring for others (Hagiwara, 2008).
  • Updated research now provides psychometric properties related to specific populations such as COPD, stroke, Parkinson's disease, and motor neuron disease as well as cross-cultural validity to Persian, Nigerian, Malaysian, Italian, Turkish, and Saudi Arabian elderly cultures.

Do you see an error or have a suggestion for this instrument summary? Please e-mail us!

Osteoarthritis

back to Populations

Standard Error of Measurement (SEM)

Hip Osteoarthritis: (Svege, 2012; n = 33; mean age = 61.3 (10.0) years; mean pain duration= 49.8 (55.4) months)

  • SEM for total PASE score (n = 33): 31
  • SEM for Household/Work activities (n = 33): 32
  • SEM for Leisure time physical activity(PA) (n = 33): 15
  • SEM for Light PA intensity (n = 33): 13
  • SEM for Moderate PA intensity (n = 33): 10
  • SEM for Vigorous PA intensity (n = 33): 4

Adults with Osteoarthritis: (Smith et al., 2021; n = 314; age ≥ 45; mean age = 67.2 (10.5) years; consulting with osteoarthritis of the hand, hip, knee, or foot)

  • SEM for PASE reliability subgroup (n = 208): 46.7

 

Minimal Detectable Change (MDC)

Hip Osteoarthritis: (Svege, 2012)

  • MDC for total PASE score (n = 33): 87
  • MDC for Household/Work activities (n = 33): 89
  • MDC for Leisure time PA (n = 33): 40
  • MDC for Light PA intensity (n = 33): 35
  • MDC for Moderate PA intensity (n = 33): 28
  • MDC for Vigorous PA intensity (n = 33): 10

Adults with Osteoarthritis: (Smith et al., 2021)

  • MDC for PASE reliability subgroup (n = 208): 129.6

 

 

 

Normative Data

Adults with Osteoarthritis: (Smith et al., 2021)

  • Mean (SD) total PASE score at baseline (n = 314): 142.3 (78.8)

 

Test/Retest Reliability

Hip Osteoarthritis: (Svege, 2012)

  • Acceptable test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.77)

Adults with Osteoarthritis: (Smith et al., 2021) (n = 208)

  • Poor test-retest reliability at 3 months for total PASE score (ICC = 0.68, p ≤ 0.001)
  • PASE-Leisure Time Activities After 3 Months:
    • Poor test-retest reliability for Sitting activities: (r = 0.54, p ≤ 0.001)
    • Poor test-retest reliability for Walking activities (r = 0.57, p ≤ 0.001)
    • Poor test-retest reliability for Light intensity activities (r = 0.33, p ≤ 0.001)
    • Poor test-retest reliability for Moderate intensity activities (r = 0.47, p ≤ 0.001)
    • Poor test-retest reliability for Strenuous intensity activities (r = 0.64, p ≤ 0.001)
    • Poor test-retest reliability for Muscle endurance or strengthening activities (r = 0.56, p ≤ 0.001)
  • PASE-Household and work-related activities after 3 months (weighted Kappa):
    • Poor test-retest reliability for Light housework (ĸ = 0.49, 95% CI: 0.08-0.89)
    • Poor test-retest reliability for Heavy housework (ĸ = 0.60, 95% CI: 0.48-0.72)
    • Poor test-retest reliability for Home repairs (ĸ = 0.49, 95% CI: 0.32-0.65)
    • Poor test-retest reliability for Garden care (ĸ = 0.46, 95% CI: 0.34-0.58)
    • Poor test-retest reliability for Outdoor gardening (ĸ = 0.37, 95% CI: 0.25-0.50)
    • Poor test-retest reliability for Caring others (ĸ = 0.52, 95% CI: 0.39-0.64)
    • Poor test-retest reliability for Work or volunteer (ĸ = 0.65, 95% CI: 0.53-0.77)
    • Poor test-retest reliability for Working physical activities (ĸ = 0.50, 95% CI: 0.29-0.71)

 

 

 

Construct Validity

Convergent validity:

Hip Osteoarthritis: (Svege, 2012)

  • Poor correlations between the total PASE score and the Actigraph GT1M accelerometer (r = 0.30)
  • Excellent correlations between the total PASE score and the International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ) total MET-minutes per week (r = 0.61)

Adults with Osteoarthritis: (Smith et al., 2021) (n = 208)

  • Adequate correlation between total PASE and IPAQ-S score at baseline (r = 0.56, p ≤ 0.001)
  • Adequate correlation between PASE and IPAQ-S sitting activities score at baseline (r = 0.46, p ≤ 0.001)
  • Adequate correlation between PASE and IPAQ-S walking activities score at baseline (r = 0.57, p ≤ 0.001)
  • Adequate correlation between PASE and IPAQ-S moderate intensity activities score at baseline (r = 0.34, p ≤ 0.001)
  • Adequate correlation between PASE and IPAQ-S vigorous/strenuous activities score at baseline (r = 0.39, p ≤ 0.001)

 

Responsiveness

Adults with Osteoarthritis: (Smith et al., 2021; n = 52; completed IPAQ-SF or PASE responsiveness subsample)

  • Small Change: Effect Size (ES) for PASE = -0.16
  • Small standardized response mean (SRM) for PASE: -0.21
  • Small response ratio (RR): 0.09

 

Cancer

back to Populations

Standard Error of Measurement (SEM)

Cancer: (Liu, 2011; n=50; mean age= 50 (12))

  • SEM for total PASE score (n = 50): 84

Minimally Clinically Important Difference (MCID)

 

Lung Cancer: (Granger, 2015; n=69; mean age = 68 years (age range= 61-74); time after diagnosis= 2, 4, and 6 months) 

  • (MCID): between 17 and 25 points

Test/Retest Reliability

Cancer: (Liu, 2011)

  • Adequate to Excellent test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.67 to 0.90).

Criterion Validity (Predictive/Concurrent)

Lung cancer: (Granger, 2015; n=69; mean age = 68 years (age range= 61-74); time after diagnosis= 2, 4, and 6 months)

  • Adequate predictive validity with the EORTC-QLQ-C30 global quality of life scores at 6 month follow-up (PASE: B coef=.35, p=.023)
  • Adequate predictive validity with the EORTC-QLQ-C30 physical function domain scores at 6 mos os sPASE:coef=.35, p=.008).

Construct Validity

Cancer: (Liu, 2011)

  • Poor correlations between the ActiGraph and the PASE (r = 0.16)

 

Lung Cancer: (Granger, 2015; n=69; mean age = 68 years (age range= 61-74); time after diagnosis= 2, 4, and 6 months)

  • Moderate convergent validity with movement sensors, counting steps per day (95%CI .29-.66)
  • Adequate to excellent correlation between the PASE and European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer questionnaire and lung caencer module [EORTC-QLQ-C30] physical function domain (95%CI .46-.66)
  • Fair strength between PASE and ECOG-PS (95%CI .23-.49)
  • Poor to adequate correlation between the PASE and functional exercise capacity, 6 minute walking distance [MWD] (95%CI .23-.55)
  • Poor to adequate correlation between the PASE and handheld dynamometry for quadriceps muscle strength (95%CI .18-.54)

Floor/Ceiling Effects

Lung Cancer: (Granger, 2015; n=69; mean age = 68 years (age range= 61-74); time after diagnosis= 2, 4, and 6 months)

  • Floor Effect: Adequate floor effect with 3% (n=6/176)
  • Ceiling Effect: Excellent, no ceiling effect (highest score was 303, 400 was highest possible)

Joint Pain and Fractures

back to Populations

Standard Error of Measurement (SEM)

Total Hip Arthroplasty: (Casartelli, 2015; n=50; mean age = 68.3 (5.9) years; mean time post-THA 7.4 (3.3) months)

  • SEM for total PASE score = 23.0%

Test/Retest Reliability

Total Knee Arthroplasty: (Bolszak, 2014; n=50; mean age = 70 (±6) years; time after TKA = 3-12 months)

  • Adequate test-retest reliability for men (ICC=0.77)
  • Poor test-retest reliability for women (ICC=0.58)

 

Total Hip Arthroplasty: (Casartelli, 2015; n = 50; mean age = 68.3 (5.9) years; mean time post-THA 7.4 (3.3) months)

  • Excellent test re-test reliability over a mean of 7.1 (0.5) days (ICC = 0.77)

Construct Validity

Total Knee Arthroplasty: (Bolszak, 2014; n=50; age range = 70 (±6) years; time after TKA = 3-12 months)

  • Adequate correlation between PASE and accelerometry for walking) in men (r=0.45)
  • Poor correlation between PASE and accelerometry for walking) in women (r=0.06)

 

Knee Pain: (Martin, 1999; n = 56; age = 471; mean age = 71.36; epidemiological study)

  • Adequate correlation between PASE and both the 6-min walk(r=0.35) and knee strength (r=0.41).

 

Total Hip Arthroplasty: (Casartelli, 2015; n = 50; mean age = 68.3 (5.9) years; mean time post-THA 7.4 (3.3) months)

  • Adequate correlation between PASE total score and Actigraph accelerometers (time spent in light-intensity physical activities) (r = 0.38)

Older Adults and Geriatric Care

back to Populations

Standard Error of Measurement (SEM)

Community Dwelling Italian Elderly: (Covatta et al., 2018; n = 94; mean age = 62.88 (7.16) years; Italian translation of PASE)

  • SEM for entire group (n = 94): 11.81

 

Community Dwelling Polish Elderly: (Wisniowska-Szurlej et al., 2020; n = 115; mean age = 72.52 (6.92) years; age range = 65-90; Polish translation of PASE)

  • Total PASE-P: SEM = 13.851
  • Leisure Time Activities: SEM = 5.255
  • Household activities: SEM: = 12.259
  • Work for pay or volunteer SEM: = 3.762

 

Community Dwelling Persian Elderly: (Keikavoosi-Arani et. al, 2019; n = 278; mean age = 74.22 (14.8) years; age range = 60-89; female = 65%; Persian translation of PASE into P-PASE)

  • SEM (calculated) for household activity scores for entire group (n = 109): 18.136.
  • SEM (calculated) for leisure activity scores for entire group (n = 109): 13.709.
  • SEM (calculated) for work related activities scores for entire group (n = 109): 14.541.

 

Community Dwelling Turkish Elderly: (Ayvat et al., 2017; n = 80, mean age = 69.71 (4.62) years; age range = 60-89; female = 65%; good cognitive levels according to Mini Mental State Test (MMST) = 24 or above; Turkish translation of the PASE)

  • SEM (calculated) for entire group (n = 80): 3.869

 

Community Dwelling Persian Elderly: (Hatami et al, 2021; n = 300; age ≥ 65; male = 202 (67%); independent in daily activities; Persian translation of PASE)

  • SEM for total PASE score for entire group (n = 300): 14.097
  • SEM for leisure time activities for entire group (n = 300): 3.108
  • SEM for household activities for entire group (n = 300): 13.747
  • SEM for work related activities for entire group (n = 300): 2.607

 

Community Dwelling Malaysian Elderly: (Singh et al, 2018; n = 33; mean age = 66.64 (5.51) years; female = 25 (76%); Malay translation of PASE)

  • SEM for total PASE-M1 score for entire group (n = 33): 13.084
  • SEM for total PASE-M2 score for entire group (n = 33): 14.324

 

Community Dwelling Saudi Arabian Elderly: (Alqarni et al., 2018; n = 74; mean age = 65.0 (7.1) years; male = 41 (55%); Arabic translation of PASE)

  • SEM for PASE-A at group level (n = 74): ranged from 3.3-8.5

 

Minimal Detectable Change (MDC)

Community Dwelling Italian Elderly: (Covatta et al., 2018)

  • MDC for entire group (n = 94): 32.74

Community Dwelling Polish Elderly: (Wisniowska-Szurlej et al., 2020) 

  • MDC total PASE-P score for entire group (n = 115): 38.393
  • MDC leisure time activities for entire group (n = 115):14.566
  • MDC household activities for entire group (n = 115): 33.980
  • MDC work for pay or volunteer for entire group (n = 115): 10.428

Community Dwelling Persian Elderly: (Keikavoosi-Arani et. al, 2019)

  • MDC leisure time activities for entire group (n = 278): 38.00
  • MDC household activities for entire group (n = 278): 50.27
  • MDC work for pay or volunteer activities for entire group (n = 278): 40.31

Community Dwelling Turkish Elderly: (Ayvat et al., 2017)

  • MDC (calculated) for entire group (n = 80): 10.72 (95% CI)

Community Dwelling Persian Elderly: (Hatami et al, 2021)

  • MDC total P-PASE score for entire group (n = 300): 39.07
  • MDC leisure time activities for entire group (n = 300): 8.62
  • MDC household activities for entire group (n = 300): 38.11
  • MDC work related activities for entire group (n = 300): 7.23

Community Dwelling Malaysian Elderly: (Singh et al, 2018)

  • MDC for total PASE-M1 score for entire group (n = 33): 36.27
  • MDC for total PASE-M2 score for entire group (n = 33): 39.70

Community Dwelling Saudi Arabian Elderly: (Alqarni et al., 2018)

  • MDC for PASE-A score at individual level (n = 74): ranged from 9.0-23.6

Normative Data

Community-dwelling Elderly: (Washburn et al, 1999; n = 20; mean age for women=72.4± 4.2 yrs / median range for men age=69-80 yrs; community-dwelling elderly people)

Mean PASE scores for the total sample and by age group

 

 

 

 

Age

Leisure exercise

Household

Occupation

Total PASE score

Total sample

31.5 ± 22.7

76.0 ± 42.7

17.7 ± 42.7

125.2 ± 79.9

Age ≤ 70 yrs

29.6 ± 22.9

78.8 ± 41.5

34.5 ± 60.9

142.9 ± 98.5

Age > 70 yrs

33.1 ± 23.7

73.6 ± 45.6

4.1 ± 6.3

110.8 ± 62.2

Noninstitutionalized Elderly: (Curcio et al., 2019; n = 420; mean age = 82.4 (5.9) years; female = 241 (57.4%))

  • PASE score was stratified in tertiles:
    • Sedentary = 0-40
    • Light Physical Activity = 41-90
    • Moderate to Intense Activity = 91+
  • Mean PASE score for all patients (n = 420) = 31.4 (42.1)
    • Mean PASE score non-sarcopenic patients (n = 365) = 92.0 (52.4)
    • Mean PASE score sarcopenic patients (n = 55) = 40.2 (89.1)

 

Community Dwelling Italian Elderly: (Covatta et al., 2018)

  • Mean PASE-I leisure time activities score = 29.94 (29.63)
  • Mean PASE-I household activities score = 84.55 (45.41)
  • Mean PASE-I work-related activities score = 44.51 (58.86)
  • Mean PASE-I total score = 159 (77.8)

 

Community Dwelling Polish Elderly: (Wisniowska-Szurlej et al., 2020)

  • Mean total PASE-P score= 91.54 (71.15)
  • Mean Leisure time activities score = 49.39 (48.49)
  • Mean Household activities score = 37.63 (27.11)
  • Mean Work for pay or volunteer score = 4.51 (21.79)
  • Mean total PASE-P score for second trial (n = 72) = 88.53 (65.10)
  • Mean leisure time activities score for second trial (n = 72)= 46.86 (41.62)
  • Mean household activities score for second trial (n = 72) = 36.33 (24.17)
  • Mean work for pay or volunteer score for second trial (n = 72) = 5.33 (25.36)

 

Community Dwelling Southeast Nigerian Elderly (Igbo Language): (Okoye et. al, 2021)

  • Mean total I-PASE score = 140.11 (55.67)
  • Mean household activities score = 39.72 (23.46)
  • Mean leisure activities score = 37.41 (30.44)
  • Mean work related activities score = 0.67 (2.67)

 

Community Dwelling Persian Elderly: (Keikavoosi-Arani et al., 2019)

  • Mean total P-PASE score = 153.57 (48.47)

 

Community Dwelling Turkish Elderly: (Ayvat et al., 2017)

  • Mean total PASE score = 121.79 (54.71)

 

Community Dwelling Persian Elderly: (Hatami et al., 2021)

  • Mean total P-PASE score = 132.67 (53.28)
  • Mean leisure time activities = 30.77 (13.90)
  • Mean household activities = 73.52 (41.45)
  • Mean work-related activities = 28.37 (15.05)

 

Community Dwelling Malaysian Elderly: (Singh et al., 2018)

  • Mean total PASE-M score = 167.91 (65.42)

 

Community Dwelling Saudi Arabian Elderly: (Alqarni et al., 2018)

  • Mean (SD) PASE-A score = 111.7 (77.7)

 

 

 

Test/Retest Reliability

Elderly: (Washburn et al, 1993)

  • Excellent test-retest reliability over a 3-7 week interval (ICC = 0.75)
  • Reliability for mail administration (r = 0.84) was higher than for telephone administration (r = 0.68)

 

Japanese Elderly: (Hagiwara, 2008; n=325, mean age = 72 years (age range = 67-77); population had no cognitive disorder or ADL deficiency.

  • Adequate test-retest reliability (ICC=0.65). (Men: Adequate (ICC=0.68). Women: Adequate (ICC=0.62))

 

Norwegian Elderly: (Loland, 2002; n = 327; women’s mean age = 74.8 (6.6) years; men’s mean age = 74.5 (6.3) years)

  • Excellent test-retest reliability over a 3-day interval (r=0.997)
  • Excellent test-retest reliability over a 3-week interval (r=0.993)

Community Dwelling Italian Elderly: (Covotta et al., 2018; n = 48; randomized subgroup of population)

  • Excellent test-retest reliability for PASE-I leisure time activities subsection (ICC = 0.993, 95% C.I.: 0.988-0.996)
  • Excellent test-retest reliability for PASE-I household activities subsection (ICC = 0.989, 95% C.I.: 0.981-0.994)
  • Excellent test-retest reliability for PASE-I work-related activities subsection (ICC = 0.967, 95% C.I.: 0.941-0.981)
  • Excellent test-retest reliability for total PASE-I score (ICC = 0.977, 95% C.I.: 0.959-0.987)

 

Community Dwelling Polish Elderly: (Wisniowska-Szurlej et al, 2020; n = 72)

  • Excellent test-retest reliability in Total PASE-P score after 14 day follow up (ICC = 0.960, 95% CI: 0.942-0.972)
  • Excellent test-retest reliability in Leisure time after 14 day follow up (ICC = 0.988, 95% CI: 0.983-0.992)
  • Excellent test-retest reliability in Household activities after 14 day follow up: (ICC = 0.778, 95% CI: 0.695-0.841)
  • Excellent test-retest reliability for Work for pay or volunteer after 14 day follow up: (ICC = 0.969, 95% CI: 0.956-0.979)

 

Community Dwelling Persian Elderly: (Keikavoosi-Arani et al., 2019)

  • Excellent test-retest reliability for leisure time activity score (ICC = 0.92, 95% CI: 0.90-0.94)
  • Acceptable test-retest reliability for household time activity score (ICC = 0.86, 95% CI: 0.82-0.87)
  • Excellent test-retest reliability for work for pay or volunteer activity score (ICC = 0.91, 95% CI: 0.90-0.94)

 

Community Dwelling Turkish Elderly: (Ayvat et al., 2017)

  • Excellent test-retest reliability for total PASE-T score (ICC = 0.995, 95% CI: 0.993-0.997)
  • Excellent test-retest reliability for Leisure time activity score at 1 week (ICC = 0.997, 95% CI: 0.995-0.998)
  • Excellent test-retest reliability for Household activity score at 1 week (ICC = 0.991, 95% CI: 0.986-0.994)
  • Excellent test-retest reliability for Work-related activity score at 1 week (ICC = 1, 95% CI: 1-1)

 

Community Dwelling Persian Elderly: (Hatami et al, 2021)

  • Excellent 10-14 day test-retest reliability for total P-PASE score (ICC = 0.93, r = 0.94)
  • Excellent 10-14 day test-retest reliability for leisure time activities score (ICC = 0.95, r =  0.92)
  • Excellent 10-14 day test-retest reliability for household activity score (ICC = 0.89, r = 0.94)
  • Excellent 10-14 day test-retest reliability for work related activities score (ICC = 0.97, r =  0.96)

 

Community Dwelling Malaysian Elderly: (Singh et al., 2018; for all ICC and r values:  p < 0.01)

  • Excellent day 8-15 test-retest reliability for total PASE-M score (ICC = 0.96, 95% CI: 0.92-0.98, r = 0.92)
  • Excellent day 8-15 test-retest reliability for leisure time activities score (ICC = 0.84, 95% CI: 0.69-0.92, r = 0.91)
  • Excellent day 8-15 test-retest reliability for household activities score (ICC = 0.86, 95% CI: 0.74-0.93, r = 0.83)
  • Excellent day 8-15 test-retest reliability for work related activities score (ICC = 0.99, 95% CI: 0.99-0.99, r = 0.95)

 

Community Dwelling Saudi Arabian Elderly: (Alquarni et al., 2018)

  • Excellent test-retest reliability for all PASE-A components after 1 week (ICC = 0.90-0.98)

 

Internal Consistency

Elderly: (Washburn et al, 1993; n=396; mean age = 73.2)

  • Poor internal consistency (α = 0.69)

 

Norwegian Elderly: (Loland, 2002; n = 343; women’s mean age = 74.8 (6.6) years; men’s mean age = 74.5 (6.3) years)

  • Adequate internal consistency (α = 0.73)

Community Dwelling Italian Elderly: (Covotta et. al., 2018)

  • Excellent internal consistency (Cronbach's α = 0.81, p < 0.01)

 

Community Dwelling Southeast Nigerian Elderly (Igbo Language): (Okoye et. al, 2021)

  • Poor internal consistency (Cronbach’s α = 0.66)

 

Community Dwelling Persian Elderly: (Keikavoosi-Arani et al., 2019)

  • Adequate internal consistency for leisure activities (Cronbach’s α = 0.74)
  • Adequate internal consistency for household activities (Cronbach’s α = 0.74)
  • Adequate internal consistency for work-related activities (Cronbach’s α = 0.79)

 

Community Dwelling Turkish Elderly: (Ayvat et al., 2017)

  • Adequate internal consistency at initial evaluation (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.714)
  • Excellent correlation between total PASE score and the leisure time activities subsection of PASE (r = 0.659, p < 0.001)
  • Excellent correlation between total PASE score and the household activities subsection of PASE (r = 0.755, p < 0.001)
  • Adequate correlation between total PASE score and the household activities subsection of PASE (r = 0.403, p < 0.001)

 

Community Dwelling Persian Elderly: (Hatami et al., 2021)

  • Excellent internal consistency for total PASE score (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.94, p = 0.0001)
  • Excellent internal consistency for leisure time activities scores (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.86, p = 0.0001)
  • Excellent internal consistency for household activities scores (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.97, p = 0.0001)
  • Excellent internal consistency for work-related activities scores (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.99, p = 0.0001)

 

Community Dwelling Malaysian Elderly: (Singh et al, 2018: n = 20; subgroup for internal consistency calculation)

  • Excellent internal consistency for total PASE-M score in one-week interval (Cronbach’s α = 0.84)

 

Community Dwelling Saudi Arabian Elderly: (Alqarni et al., 2018)

  • Adequate internal consistency of all PASE-A components (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.70-0.75) except “lawn work or yard care” item
  • Poor internal consistency of the “lawn work or yard care” item (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.69)

 

 

Criterion Validity (Predictive/Concurrent)

Concurrent validity:

Japanese Elderly: (Hagiwara, 2008; n=325, mean age = 72 years (age range = 67-77); population had no cognitive disorder or ADL deficiency

  • Significant concurrent validity with walking steps (p=.17), energy expenditure (p=.16), JALSPAQ (p=.48), MTMA (p=.15) and static balance (p=.19).
    • For men, additional concurrent validity with walking steps (p=.38), energy expenditure (.35), JALSPAQ (p=.48) and static balance (p=.2).
    • For women, additional concurrent validity with JALSPAQ (p=.47), grip strength (p=.16), MTMA (p=.23) and static balance (p=.17).

Community Dwelling Italian Elderly: (Covotta et al., 2018)

  • Adequate correlation between PASE-I and BBS leisure time activities score (r = 0.459, p < 0.01)
  • Adequate correlation between PASE-I and BBS household activities score (r = 0.495, p < 0.01)
  • Excellent correlation between PASE-I and BBS work-related activities score (r = 0.713, p < 0.01)
  • Excellent correlation between PASE-I and BBS total score ( r = 0.817, p < 0.01)

 

Community Dwelling Persian Elderly: (Keikavoosi-Arani et al., 2019)

  • Excellent correlation between P-PASE and ADL (r = 0.775, p < 0.001)
  • Poor correlation between P-PASE and IADL (r = 0.161, p < 0.001)
  • Excellent correlation between P-PASE and TUG (r = -0.691, p < 0.001)
  • Excellent correlation between P-PASE and age (r = -0.791, p < 0.001)
  • No correlation between P-PASE and BMI

 

Community Dwelling Turkish Elderly: (Ayvat et al., 2017)

  • Excellent correlation between total PASE score and total IPAQ score (r = 0.742, p < 0.001)
  • Adequate correlation between work-related activities subsections of PASE and IPAQ (r = 0.566, p < 0.001)
  • Excellent correlation between household activities subsections of PASE and IPAQ (r = 0.648, p < 0.001)
  • Excellent correlation between leisure time activities subsections of PASE and IPAQ (r = 0.676, p < 0.001)

 

Community Dwelling Malaysian Elderly: (Singh et al, 2018; PASE-M completed on day-8 (PASE-M1) and day-15 (PASE-M2))

  • Total PASE-M1 (day 8), n = 33 scores were significantly correlated with accelerometer readings for VM counts, time in MVPA, energy expenditure, and walking steps. r’s = 0.39-0.55, p < 0.01
    • Adequate correlation between total PASE-M scores and VM counts (r = 0.54, p < 0.01)
    • Adequate correlation between total PASE-M scores and Time in MVPA scores (r = 0.55, p < 0.01)
    • Adequate correlation between total PASE-M scores and energy expenditure scores (r = 0.53, p < 0.01)
    • Adequate correlation between total PASE-M scores and walking steps scores (r = 0.39, p < 0.05)
  • PASE-M1 Leisure Time Activity Scores were adequately correlated with VM counts, time in MVPA, and energy expenditure.
    • Adequate correlation between PASE-M leisure time activity scores and VM count (r = 0.32)
    • Adequate correlation between PASE-M leisure time activity scores and time in MVPA (r = 0.45, p < 0.01)
    • Adequate correlation between PASE-M leisure time activity scores and energy expenditure (r = 0.52, p < 0.01)
    • Poor correlation between PASE-M leisure time activity scores and walking steps (r = 0.25)
  • PASE-M1 Household activity scores were poorly correlated with VM counts, time in MVPA, energy expenditure, and walking steps.
    • Poor correlation between PASE-M1 household activity scores and VM counts (r = 0.30)
    • Poor correlation between PASE-M household activity scores and time in MVPA scores (r = 0.20)
    • Poor correlation between PASE-M household activity scores and energy expenditure (r = 0.24)
    • Poor correlation between PASE-M household activity scores and walking steps (r = -0.08)
  • PASE-M1 work-related activity scores were adequately correlated with time in MVPA, energy expenditure, and walking steps and poorly correlated with VM counts.
    • Poor correlation between PASE-M work-related activity scores and VM counts (r = 0.27)
    • Adequate correlation between PASE-M work-related activity scores and time in MVPA scores (r = 0.40, p < 0.05)
    • Adequate correlation between PASE-M work-related activity scores and energy expenditure scores (r = 0.34, p < 0.05)
    • Adequate correlation between PASE-M work-related activity scores and walking steps scores  (r = 0.53, p < 0.01)

 

Predictive validity:

Noninstitutionalized Elderly:(Curcio et al., 2019)

  • Low PASE scores are correlated with low muscle mass (R2 = 0.51)
  • Low PASE scores are correlated with low muscle strength by handgrip (R2 = 0.63)

 

Construct Validity

Convergent validity:

Elderly: (Dinger, 2004; n = 56; age = 75.7+/-7.9 years; experimental design)

  • Excellent correlations between the 1st and 2nd interview total PASE scores (r = 0.91).
  • Adequate correlations between Actigraph mean counts x minute (-1) and 1st interview total PASE scores. (r = 0.43).

 

Elderly: (Ewald, 2010; n = 669; age = 63.3 (7.7) years; cross-sectional analysis)

  • Adequate correlations between PASE score and step count (r=0.37 in women, r=0.30 in men).

 

Elderly: (Washburn, 1993)

  • Adequate correlations between PASE scores and grip strength (r = 0.37), static balance (r = +0.33), age (r = -0.34) and perceived health status (r = -0.34); and overall Sickness Impact Profile score (r = -0.42).
  • Poor correlations between PASE scores and resting heart rate (r = -0.13) and leg strength (r = 0.25).

 

Sedentary Elderly: (Washburn, 1999; n=190; mean age=66.5 (age range= 61.2-71.9)

  • Construct validity established by correlating PASE scores and physiologic and performance characteristics—Significant association (P less than 0.5) with peak oxygen uptake (r=.2), systolic blood pressure (r=-.18), and balance score (r=.2).

 

Elderly: (Harada, 2001; n = 87; mean age = 75(age range=69-81)

  • Excellent correlation between PASE total score and 6-minute walk (r = 0.68)
  • Adequate correlation between PASE total score and Mini-Logger ankle (r = 0.59)
  • Adequate correlation between PASE total score and Mini-Logger waist (r = 0.52)
  • Adequate correlation between PASE total score and EPESE lower body functioning (r = 0.57)
  • Poor correlation between PASE total score and SF-36 Health Survey (self-reported functioning and well-being), Physical Functioning domain (r = 0.30)
  • Poor correlation between PASE total score and SF-36 Health Survey, General Health perceptions domain (r = 0.26)
  • Poor correlation between PASE total score and SF-36 Health Survey, Mental Health domain (r = 0.23)
  • Poor correlation between PASE total score and SF-36 Health Survey, Pain domain (r = 0.17)
  • Excellent correlation between PASE and Yale Physical Activity Survey (YPAS) (r = 0.61)
  • Excellent correlation between PASE and Community Healthy Activities Model Program for Seniors Questionnaire (CHAMPS “moderate” activities) (r = 0.64)
  • Adequate correlation between PASE and Community Healthy Activities Model Program for Seniors Questionnaire (CHAMPS “all” activities) (r = 0.58)

Community Dwelling Polish Elderly: Wisniowska-Szurlej et. al (2020) 

  • Adequate correlation between total PASE-P and TUG (r = -0.514, p < 0.001)
  • Adequate correlation between total PASE-P and TUG cog (r = -0.431, p < 0.001)
  • Poor correlation between total PASE-P and HGSL  (r = 0.227, p < 0.05)
  • Adequate correlation between total PASE-P and 5xSTS (r = 0.558, p < 0.001)
  • Adequate correlation between total PASE-P and 10 MWT (r = -0.472, p < 0.001)
  • Adequate correlation between total PASE-P and ADL (r = 0.337, p < 0.001)
  • Adequate correlation between total PASE-P and IADL (r = 0.415, p < 0.001)
  • Adequate correlation between total PASE-P and BBS (r = 0.537, p < 0.001)
  • Excellent correlation between total PASE-P and IPAQ (r = 0.694, p < 0.001)
  • Adequate correlation between PASE-P leisure time activity and TUG (r = -0.431, p < 0.001)
  • Adequate correlation between PASE-P leisure time activity and TUG cog  (r = -0.406, p < 0.001)
  • Poor correlation between PASE-P leisure time activity and HGSR  (r = 0.202, p < 0.05)
  • Adequate correlation between PASE-P leisure time activity and 5XSTS (r = 0.500, p < 0.001)
  • Adequate correlation between PASE-P leisure time activity and 10 MWT (r = -0.467, p < 0.001)
  • Adequate correlation between PASE-P leisure time activity and ADL (r = 0.338, p < 0.001)
  • Adequate correlation between PASE-P leisure time activity and IADL (r = 0.385, p < 0.001)
  • Adequate correlation between PASE-P leisure time activity and BBS (r = 0.510, p < 0.001)
  • Adequate correlation between PASE-P leisure time activity and IPAQ (r = 0.858, p < 0.001)
  • Adequate correlation between PASE-P household activity and TUG (r = -0.441, p < 0.001)
  • Adequate correlation between PASE-P household activity and TUG cog (r = -0.405, p < 0.001)
  • Poor correlation between PASE-P household activity and HGSL  (r = 0.248, p < 0.05)
  • Adequate correlation between PASE-P household activity and 5xSTS   (r = 0.395, p < 0.001)
  • Adequate correlation between PASE-P household activity and 10 MWT (r = -0.309, p < 0.001)
  • Poor correlation between PASE-P household activity and ADL (r = 0.200, p < 0.05)
  • Adequate correlation between PASE-P household activity and IADL (r = 0.322, p < 0.001)
  • Adequate correlation between PASE-P household activity and BBS (r = 0.380, p < 0.001)
  • Poor correlation between PASE-P household activity and IPAQ (r = 0.211, p < 0.05)
  • Poor correlation between PASE-P work related activity and 5xSTS (r = 0.216, p < 0.05)

 

Community Dwelling Southeast Nigerian Elderly (Igbo Language): (Okoye et. al, 2021)

  • Excellent correlation between I-PASE and English PASE total score (r = 0.78, p < 0.01)
  • Excellent correlation between I-PASE and English PASE leisure activities score (r = 0.73, p < 0.01)
  • Excellent correlation between I-PASE and English PASE household activities score (r = 0.71, p < 0.01)
  • Excellent correlation between I-PASE and English PASE work related activities score (r = 1.00, p < 0.01)
  • Excellent correlation between I-PASE and English PASE Item 2 scores (r = 0.72, p < 0.01)
  • Poor correlation between I-PASE and English PASE Item 3 scores (r = 0.24, p = 0.01)
  • Adequate correlation between I-PASE and English PASE Item 4 scores (r = 0.53, p < 0.01)
  • Excellent correlation between I-PASE and English PASE Item 5 scores (r = 0.77, p < 0.01)
  • Adequate correlation between I-PASE and English PASE Item 6 scores (r = 0.58, p < 0.01)
  • Excellent correlation between I-PASE and English PASE Item 7 scores (r = 0.96, p < 0.01)
  • Excellent correlation between I-PASE and English PASE Item 8 scores (r = 0.66, p < 0.01)
  • Excellent correlation between I-PASE and English PASE Item 9A scores (r = 0.73, p < 0.01)
  • Excellent correlation between I-PASE and English PASE Item 9B scores (r = 0.78, p < 0.01)
  • Excellent correlation between I-PASE and English PASE Item 9C scores (r = 0.70, p < 0.01)
  • Excellent correlation between I-PASE and English PASE Item 9D scores (r = 0.64, p < 0.01)
  • Excellent correlation between I-PASE and English PASE Item 10 scores (r = 1.00, p < 0.01)
  • Adequate correlation between I-PASE and SF-IPAQ score (SF-IPAQ is a short form version of the questionnaire in which there is a time limitation. It is recommended for use in prevalence studies) (r = 0.50, p < 0.01)

 

Community Dwelling Turkish Elderly: (Ayvat et at., 2017)

  • Excellent correlation between total PASE score and the Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB) (r = 0.622, p < 0.001)
  • Adequate correlation between total PASE score and the SF-36 (r = 0.432, p < 0.001)
  • Adequate correlation between total PASE score and the physical functioning subsection of the SF-36 (r = 0.545, p < 0.001)

 

Community Dwelling Saudi Arabian Elderly: (Alqarni et al., 2018)

  • Poor correlation between total PASE score and grip strength (r = 0.288, p < 0.05)
  • Adequate correlation between total PASE score and TUG (r = -0.451, p < 0.01)
  • Adequate correlation between leisure time activity PASE score and grip strength (r = 0.443, p < 0.01)
  • Poor correlation between leisure time activity PASE-A score and:
    • Fat-Free Mass (FFM) (r = 0.282, p < 0.05)
    • Total Body Water (TBW) percentage (r = 0.258, p < 0.05)  
    • Muscle Mass (MM) (r = 0.290, p < 0.05)
    • Fat Percentage (FP) (r = −0.258, p < 0.05)
  • Adequate correlation between leisure time activity PASE-A score and TUG (r = -0.442, p < 0.01)
  • Poor correlation between household activity PASE-A score and:
    • Body Mass Index (BMI) (r = 0.290, p < 0.05)  
    • Fat Mass (r = 0.278, p < 0.01)
    • TUG (r = −0.272, p < 0.05)
  • Adequate correlation between household activity PASE-A score and FP (r = 0.307, p < 0.01)
  • Adequate correlation between household activity PASE-A score and TBW (r = −0.304, p < 0.01)
  • Adequate correlation between work-related activity PASE-A score and:
    • FFM (r = 0.311, p < 0.01)
    • MM (r = 0.312, p < 0.01)
  • Poor correlation between work-related activity PASE-A score and TUG (r = -0.282, p < 0.05)

 

Discriminate validity:

Noninstitutionalized Elderly:(Curcio et al., 2019)

  • Significantly lower mean PASE scores for those diagnosed with sarcopenia compared to those without sarcopenia (40.2 (89.1) vs. 92.0 (52.4), p < 0.001)
  • Significant decrease in frailty with increasing PASE tertile scores as measured by the Rockwood index (p = 0.001 for trend)
    • PASE score = 0-40: Rockwood index (RI) = 22.2 (9.1)
    • PASE score = 41-90: RI = 15.2 (8.2)
    • PASE score > 90: RI = 12.0 (6.7)

Content Validity

Community Dwelling Italian Elderly: (Covotta et al., 2018)

  • The scale was adapted through forward and backward translation, and activities were modified to better reflect Italian culture (e.g., shuffleboard was replaced with boules; hunting was replaced with dancing).
  • A focus group of physiotherapists and proofreaders ensured that the content retained conceptual alignment with the original version

 

Community Dwelling Polish Elderly: Wisniowska-Szurlej et al., 2020) 

  • The scale was adapted through forward and backward translation, and activities were modified to better reflect Polish culture (e.g., “golf with a cart”, “shuffleboard” and “fishing from a boat” were modified to “billiards”, “go shopping” and “walking with friends.” and in the household activities, item eight, “ironing”, was added to the heavy housework activities. In work-related activity, the units of weight were changed from pounds to kilograms).

 

Community Dwelling Persian Elderly: (Keikavoosi-Arani et al., 2019)

  • Acceptable content validity ratio (CVR) of 0.62
  • Good content validity index (CVI) > 0.79

 

Community Dwelling Persian Elderly: (Hatami et al, 2021)

  • The scale was adapted through forward and backward translation, impact score, content validity ratio (CVR), and content validity index (CVI). Confirmatory factor analysis revealed a good fit for the original three-factor structure.
  • All items had CVR and CVI values greater than 0.6 and 0.79 respectively.

 

Community Dwelling Saudi Arabian Elderly: (Alqarni et al., 2018)

  • Adapted culturally for Saudi Arabia, the scale was adapted through forward and backward translation, and activities were modified to better reflect Saudi Arabian culture (Items were modified to match the cultural context (e.g., replacing "walking the dog" with "walking to the mosque. “bowling”, “golf with a cart”, “shuffleboard”, and “fishing from a boat” were replaced with “shooting”, “bowling”, “billiards”, and “simple care for pet animals”, respectively. “Ballroom dancing” was modified to “folk dancing with slow movement”, and “ice skating”, “golf without a cart”, and “softball” were replaced with “grazing sheep or camels”, respectively. And some examples such as “single tennis” and “skiing downhill or cross-country” were removed, and “aerobic dance” was modified to “folk dancing with high movement”. Under household activity the examples - regarding lawn work or yard care – “snow removal” was replaced with “dusting or washing dust”, and “wood chopping” was removed).

 

Community Dwelling Southeast Nigerian Elderly (Igbo Language): (Okoye et. al, 2021)

  • Adapted culturally for South Nigerian, Igbo Language, the scale was adapted through forward and backward translation, and activities were changed or modified to better reflect Nigerian Igbo culture.

 

Face Validity

Community Dwelling Italian Elderly: (Covatta et. al, 2018)

  • Strong face validity; During the translation and cultural adaptation process, experts, including physiotherapists and proofreaders, reviewed the scale to confirm its clarity, relevance, and applicability to the Italian population.

 

Community Dwelling Polish Elderly: (Wisniowska-Szurlej et. al 2020) 

  • Two experts (one physiotherapist and one professional interpreter) carried out reverse translations of the previously mentioned scale from Polish into English.
  • An expert team of 5 specialists in the field of research methodology, language translations, geriatrics, and physiotherapy evaluated the submitted reports and formulated the initial version of the PASE-P scale.

 

Community Dwelling Persian Elderly: (Keikavoosi-Arani et al, 2019)

  • Face validity was assessed based upon the views and opinions of 20 Iranian elderly. Several items were modified to better reflect the Persian culture.

 

Community Dwelling Persian Elderly: (Hatami et al., 2021)

  • The scale was translated and culturally adapted using a forward-backward translation process. To determine qualitative validity, a 6-person panel (two professional health, two sports and two geriatric specialist) evaluated for level of difficulty, ambiguity and general comprehension.

 

Community Dwelling Malaysian Elderly: (Singh et al., 2018; n = 20; subgroup of initial population)

  • Original PASE English version was translated into Malay language.
  • Translation was made through forward translation, expert panel, back-to-back translation, pretesting, and cognitive interviewing and final version of questionnaire.

 

Community Dwelling Saudi Arabian Elderly: (Alqarni et al., 2018)

  • The scale was translated, culturally adapted and completed forward-backward translation process. An expert panel of four experts in research methodology, language translation, geriatrics and rehabilitation evaluated the questionnaire for face validity until it reached consensus. The last stage before final approval included a pilot test of the pre-final translated version with 30 Arabic speaking community dwelling older adults to ensure all content was understandable. Once all items were culturally adapted and appropriately translated, it was sent to the developer (NERI) for approval of the final PASE-A version. PASE-A was described as easy to understand and culturally relevant for older adults in Saudi Arabia.

 

Community Dwelling Southeast Nigerian Elderly (Igbo Language): (Okoye et. al, 2021)

  • The scale was translated, culturally adapted and completed forward-backward translation process. An expert panel of four physical therapist, one language professional and four translators consolidated the final version of the I-PASE. Finally, the translated version was evaluated for face validity with 30 Igbo speaking community healthy older adults to ensure all content was clear, unambiguous, easy to understand and relevant.

 

Non-Specific Patient Population

back to Populations

Internal Consistency

Acute Coronary Event & Participation In Cardiac Rehabilitation: (Allison, 1998; n=32; mean age = 72 (4.24) years (age range = 67-83); mean time after cardiac event and rehabilitation not listed)

  • Adequate internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha=0.71 for standardized variables (scores improved to 0.73 when researchers removed one item (number of hours worked)

Content Validity

The three-Step Test Interview (TSTI) method showed that participants perceived several problems when answering the PASE regarding the type, intensity and duration of activities.

 

Acute Coronary Event & Participation In Cardiac Rehabilitation: (Allison, 1998; n=32; mean age = 72 (4.24) years (age range = 67-83); mean time after cardiac event and rehabilitation not listed)

 

  • 83% agreement by the experts that the 12 activities from the PASE were relevant and appropriate for evaluating the physical activities of elderly people living in a rural community

Stroke

back to Populations

Normative Data

Stroke: (Giray et al., 2022; n = 25; age range = 40-80 years; mean age = 54.96 (10.79) years; mean duration of time since stroke = 48.32 (43.99) months)

  • Mean (SD) total PASE score for entire group= 54.38 (40.25)

 

Criterion Validity (Predictive/Concurrent)

Concurrent validity:

Stroke: (Giray et. Al, 2022)

  • Adequate correlation between PASE score and moderate total activity count (r = 0.43, p = 0.03)
  • Adequate correlation between PASE score and energy expenditure during moderate physical activity (r = 0.41, p = 0.04)
  • Adequate correlation between PASE score and total step count (r = 0.45, p = 0.03)

 

Construct Validity

Convergent  validity:

Ischemic Stroke: (Lindahl, 2008; n = 49; age ≥ 40 years of age; 3-12 months post stroke)

  • Adequate correlations between PASE and each of the five items in the Senior Fitness Test (SFT) that required strength, aerobic endurance and dynamic balance (correlation between 0.43 and 0.50) for the total group. The correlation between PASE and the two items testing flexibility were low and did not reach significance.

Stroke: (Giray et. Al, 2022)

  • Adequate correlation between PASE and stroke impact scores (r = 0.49, p = 0.01)

 

Parkinson's Disease

back to Populations

Standard Error of Measurement (SEM)

Parkinson’s Disease Without Cognitive Impairment (CI): (Ånfors et. Al, 2021; n = 49; mean age = 65 (6.9) years; male = 27 (55%); median duration of Parkinson’s Disease= 4.3 years (q1-q3, 1.9-7.1 years) 

  • Total PASE score SEM for entire group (n = 49): 30

 

Minimal Detectable Change (MDC)

Parkinson’s Disease Without CI: (Anfors et. al, 2021)

  • MDC (calculated) for entire group (n = 49): 83.1

 

Test/Retest Reliability

Parkinson’s Disease Without CI: (Anfors, 2021)

  • Poor seven-day test-retest reliability for total PASE score (ICC = 0.66, 95% C.I. = 0.46-0.79)
  • Poor seven-day test-retest reliability for PASE household subscore (ICC = 0.69, 95% C.I. = 0.51-0.81)

 

Limb Loss and Amputation

back to Populations

Normative Data

Lower Limb Amputation: (Esfandiari et al, 2021; n = 68; male = 59 (87%); mean age = 65.5 (8.9); mean time since amputation (months) = 195.9 (243.0))

 

Variable

Amount of People in Sample (n)

Median PASE Score

Range

95% CI

Age

 

 

 

 

50-64

30

136.2

356.4

100.8-195.1

65 and older

38

137.7

332.9

99.6-164.7

Sex

 

 

 

 

Male

59

136.0

356.4

104.6-161.8

Female

9

137.7

332.9

100.8-279.2

Level of Amputation

 

 

 

 

Transtibial

55

136.4

354.2

114.5-164.1

Knee Disarticulation and Transfemoral

13

133.2

332.9

33.6-290.8

Cause of Amputation

 

 

 

 

Dysvascular

31

121.8

330.7

89.5-147.1

Event

37

161.8

356.4

115.1-204.9

Total

68

136.4

356.4

114.5-164.1

 

Construct Validity

Convergent validity:

Lower Limb Amputation: (Esfandiari et al., 2021)

  • Adequate correlation between PASE and ABC (Activities-Specific Balance Confidence) scores (r = 0.34, 95% CI, 0.10-0.56, p = 0.004)
  • Adequate correlation between PASE and FSST (Four Square Step Test) scores (r = 0.34, 95% CI, -0.5-(-0.07), p = 0.003)
  • Adequate correlation between PASE and 2-MWT (2-Minute Walk Test) scores (r = 0.32, 95% CI, 0.05-0.52, p = 0.008)
  • Adequate correlation between PASE and LSA (Life Space Assessment) (r = 0.40, 95% CI, 0.14-0.60, p = 0.002)

 

Content Validity

Lower Limb Amputation: (Esfandiari et al., 2021)

  • The correlations between PASE and ABC, FSST, and 2-MWT show statistically significant correlations, but not to the threshold which would show its ability to uncover physical activity level of older adults with LLA.
  • Study correlations indicate PASE may not be effective in measuring the physical activity levels in older adults with LLA.

 

Intellectual Disability

back to Populations

Normative Data

Mild Cognitive Impairment: (Hopkins et. al, 2024; n = 91; number with valid accelerometer data = 79; median age with valid accelerometer data [interquartile range] = 71 [54-75] years)

  • Median PASE total score [interquartile range] for participants with valid accelerometer data = 123.14 [87.89-161.71]
  • Median PASE total score [interquartile range] for participants without valid accelerometer data = 78.23 [61.39-106.00]

Criterion Validity (Predictive/Concurrent)

Concurrent validity:

Mild Cognitive Impairment: (Hopkins et. al, 2024)

  • Poor correlation between PASE score and total standing time per day (r = 0.04, p = 0.724)
  • Poor correlation between PASE score and total sitting time per day (r = 0.04, p = 0.699)
  • Adequate correlation between PASE score and total stepping time per day (r = 0.35, p = 0.002)
  • Adequate correlation between PASE score and total number of steps per day (r = 0.36, p = 0.001)
  • Adequate correlation between PASE score and number of steps in stepping activities completed for < 1 min (r = 0.42, p = 0.0001)

 

Mixed Populations

back to Populations

Standard Error of Measurement (SEM)

Community Dwelling/Nursing Home Resident Elderly: (Damjanovic et al., 2024; n = 211; age > 65 years; mean age = 71.44 (3.54) years, male = 110 (52%); Croatian/Bosnian and Herzegovinian translation of PASE) 

  • SEM (calculated) for entire group (n = 211): 21.605

 

Minimal Detectable Change (MDC)

Community Dwelling/Nursing Home Resident Elderly: (Damjanovic et al., 2024)

  • MDC (calculated) for entire group (n = 211): 59.89

 

Test/Retest Reliability

Community Dwelling/Nursing Home Resident Elderly: (Damjanovic et al., 2024)

  • Acceptable 10-14 day test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.71)

 

Criterion Validity (Predictive/Concurrent)

Concurrent validity:

Community Dwelling/Nursing Home Resident Elderly: (Damjanovic et al., 2024)

  • Excellent correlation between PASE total score and SF_12MCS score (r = 0.81, p < 0.001)
  • Excellent correlation between PASE total score and SF_12PCS score (r = 0.86, p < 0.001)
  • Excellent correlation between PASE total scores and participant’s age (r = 0.71, p < 0.001)

 

Construct Validity

Convergent validity:

Community Dwelling/Nursing Home Resident Elderly: (Damjanovic et. Al, 2024)

  • Excellent correlation between number of steps per day among nursing home residents and total PASE score (r = 0.65975, p < 0.001)
  • Excellent correlation between number of steps per day among community-dwelling residents and total PASE score (r = 0.83894, p < 0.001)
  • Excellent correlation between number of steps per day among females and total PASE score (r = 0.71004, p < 0.001)
  • Excellent correlation between number of steps per day among males and total PASE score (r = 0.80129, p < 0.001)
  • Excellent correlation between number of steps per day in full population and total PASE score (r = 0.75859, p < 0.001)

 

Bibliography

Allison, M. J., Keller, C., & Hutchinson, P. L. (1998) Selection of an instrument to measure the physical activity of elderly people in rural areas. Rehabilitation Nursing, 23 (6), 309-314.Find it on PubMed

Alqarni AM, Vennu V, Alshammari SA, & Bindawas SM. (2018). Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Arabic version of the physical activity scale for the elderly among community-dwelling older adults in Saudi Arabia. Clin Interv Aging., 13:419-427. https://doi.org/10.2147/CIA.S157007

Ånfors S, Kammerlind AS, & Nilsson MH. (2021). Test-retest reliability of physical activity questionnaires in parkinson's disease. BMC Neurol., 21(1):399. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12883-021-02426-y

Ayvat E, Kilinç M, & Kirdi N. (2017). The Turkish version of the physical activity scale for the elderly (PASE): its cultural adaptation, validation, and reliability. Turk J Med Sci., 47(3):908-915. https://doi.org/10.3906/sag-1605-7

Casartelli, N.C., Bolszak, S., Impellizzeri, F.M., & Maffiuletti, N.A. (2015). Reproducibility and Validity of the Physical Activity Scale for the Elderly (PASE) Questionnaire in Patients After Total Hip Arthroplasty. Physical Therapy, 95(1), 86-94. Find it on PubMed

Cavanaugh, J. T., & Crawford, K. (2014). Life-space assessment and physical activity scale for the elderly: Validity of proxy informant responses. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 95(8), 1527–1532. Find it on PubMed

Covotta A, Gagliardi M, Berardi A, et al. (2018). Physical activity scale for the elderly: translation, cultural adaptation, and validation of the Italian version. Curr Gerontol Geriatr Res., 2018(1):8294568. https://www.doi.org/10.1155/2018/8294568

Curcio F, Liguori I, Cellulare M, et al. (2019). Physical activity scale for the elderly (PASE) score is related to sarcopenia in noninstitutionalized older adults. J Geriatr Phys Ther., 42(3):130-135. https://doi.org/10.1519/JPT.0000000000000139

Damjanovic VM, Salcin LO, Ostojic D, et al. (2024). Exploring factors associated with physical activity in the elderly: a cross-sectional study during the COVID-19 pandemic. Behav Sci (Basel), 14(1):62. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs14010062

Dibble, L. E., Cavanaugh, J. T., et al. (2010). "Charting the progression of disability in Parkinson disease: study protocol for a prospective longitudinal cohort study." BMC Neurol 10: 110. Find it on PubMed

Dinger, M. K., Oman, R. F., et al. (2004). "Stability and convergent validity of the Physical Activity Scale for the Elderly (PASE)." J Sports Med Phys Fitness 44(2): 186-192. Find it on PubMed

Esfandiari E, Miller WC, Tao G, et al. (2021) Validity of measures for life space mobility and physical activity in older adults with lower-limb amputation. Prosthet Orthot Int., 45(5):428-433. https://doi.org/10.1097/PXR.0000000000000032

Ewald, B., McEvoy, M., et al. (2010). "Pedometer counts superior to physical activity scale for identifying health markers in older adults." Br J Sports Med 44(10): 756-761. Find it on PubMed

Giray E, Karadag-Saygi E, Eren N, et al. (2022). Comparative validity of physical activity scale for elderly with an accelerometer in patients with stroke. Turkish Journal of Geriatrics, 25(2):215.  https://doi.org/10.31086/tjgeri.2022.278

Granger, C. L., Parry, S. M., & Denehy, L. (2015). The self-reported physical activity scale for the elderly (PASE) is valid and clinically applicability measure in lung cancer. Support Care Cancer 23, 3211–3218. Find it on PubMed

Hagiwara, A., Ito, N., et al. (2008). "Validity and reliability of the Physical Activity Scale for the Elderly (PASE) in Japanese elderly people." Geriatr Gerontol Int 8(3): 143-151. Find it on PubMed

Harada, N. D., Chiu, V., King, A. C., & Stewart, A. L. (2001). An evaluation of three self-report physical activity instruments for older adults. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc, 33(6), 962–970.Find it on PubMed

Hatami O, Aghabagheri M, Kahdouei S, & Nasiriani K. (2021). Psychometric properties of the Persian version of the physical activity scale for the elderly (PASE). BMC Geriatrics, 21(1):383. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-021-02337-0

Hopkins J, McVeigh JA, Hill KD, & Burton E. (2024). Physical activity levels and sedentary behavior of people living with mild cognitive impairment: a cross-sectional study using thigh-worn accelerometers. J Aging Phys Act., 32(4):520-530. https://doi.org/10.1123/japa.2023-0176

Keikavoosi-Arani L, Salehi L. (2019). Cultural adaptation and psychometric adequacy of the Persian version of the physical activity scale for the elderly (P-PASE). BMC Res Notes., 12(1):555. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13104-019-4591-7

Lindahl, M., Hansen, L., et al. (2008). "Self-reported physical activity after ischemic stroke correlates with physical capacity." Advances in Physiotherapy 10(4): 188-194.

Liu, R. D., Buffart, L. M., et al. (2011). "Psychometric properties of two physical activity questionnaires, the AQuAA and the PASE, in cancer patients." BMC Med Res Methodol 11: 30. Find it on PubMed

Loland, N. (2002). Reliability of the Physical Activity Scale for the Elderly (PASE). Eur J Sport Sci, 2(5), 1–12.

Martin, K. A., Rejeski, W. J., et al. (1999). "Validation of the PASE in older adults with knee pain and physical disability." Med Sci Sports Exerc 31(5): 627-633. Find it on PubMed

Ngai, S. P., Cheung, R. T., et al. (2012). "Validation and reliability of the Physical Activity Scale for the Elderly in Chinese population." J Rehabil Med 44(5): 462-465. Find it on PubMed

Okoye EC, Akosile CO, Maruf FA, Onwuakagba IU, & Chukwuma VC. (2021). Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Nigerian (Igbo) version of the physical activity scale for the elderly. J Aging Phys Act., 29(4):553-561. https://doi.org/10.1123/japa.2020-0142

Schuit, A. J., Schonten, E. G., Westerterp, K. R., & Saris, W. H. M. (1997). Validity of the Physical Activity Scale for the Elderly (PASE): According to energy expenditure assessed by the doubly labeled water method. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 50(5), 541–546. Find it on PubMed

Sia T, Connors KA, & Morgan P. (2023). Physical activity in people with motor neuron disease: validity of the physical activity scale for the elderly as a measuring tool. Arch Phys Med Rehabil., 104(1):102-107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2022.09.007

Singh DV, Rahman NN, Rajaratnam BS, et al. (2018). Validity and reliability of physical activity scale for elderly in Malay language (PASE-M). Malaysian Journal of Public Health Medicine., Special Volume (1):116. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Devinder-Kaur-Ajit-Singh/publication/324441822_Validity_and_reliability_of_physical_activity_scale_for_elderly_in_Malay_language_PASE-M/links/5aea573b45851588dd828718/Validity-and-reliability-of-physical-activity-scale-for-elderly-in-Malay-language-PASE-M.pdf

Siordia, C. (2012). Alternative scoring for Physical Activity Scale for the Elderly (PASE). Maturitas, 72(4), 379–382.Find it on PubMed

Smith RD, McHugh GA, Quicke JG, Dziedzic KS, & Healey EL. (2021). Comparison of reliability, construct validity and responsiveness of the IPAQ-SF and PASE in adults with osteoarthritis. Musculoskeletal Care, 19(4):473-483. https://doi.org/10.1002/msc.1540

Svege, I., Kolle, E., et al. (2012). "Reliability and validity of the Physical Activity Scale for the Elderly (PASE) in patients with hip osteoarthritis." BMC Musculoskelet Disord 13: 26. Find it on PubMed

Tao YX, Wang L, Dong XY, et al. (2016). Psychometric properties of the physical activity scale for the elderly in Chinese patients with COPD. (Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis., 12:105-114. https://doi.org/10.2147/COPD.S120700

Washburn, R. A. and Ficker, J. L. (1999). "Physical Activity Scale for the Elderly (PASE): the relationship with activity measured by a portable accelerometer." J Sports Med Phys Fitness 39(4): 336-340. Find it on PubMed

Washburn, R. A., Smith, K. W., et al. (1993). "The Physical Activity Scale for the Elderly (PASE): development and evaluation." J Clin Epidemiol 46(2): 153-162. Find it on PubMed

Washburn, R. A., McAuley, E., Katula, J., Mihalko, S. L., & Boileau, R. A. (1999). The Physical Activity Scale for the Elderly (PASE): Evidence for validity. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 52(7), 643–651. Find it on PubMed

Wiśniowska-Szurlej A, Ćwirlej-Sozańska A, Wołoszyn N, Sozański B, Wilmowska-Pietruszyńska A, & Washburn R. (2020). Cultural adaptation and validation of the polish version of the physical activity scale for older people living in a community: a cross-sectional study, Eur Rev Aging Phys Act., 17(1):19. https://doi.org/10.1186/s11556-020-00252-8

 

rehabilitation measures

More Instruments Like This

We have reviewed more than 500 instruments for use with a number of diagnoses including stroke, spinal cord injury and traumatic brain injury among several others.

updated Feb 27, 2025

Psychosocial Impact of Ass...

read more

updated Jan 14, 2025

Work and Social Adjustment...

read more

updated Nov 5, 2024

Leicester Cough Questionna...

read more