Table 3.

Comparison of JLO Short Forms and JLO Full Form V: Correlations and Misclassification Rates across All Samples

	Sample A: Young Adults (n=128)		Sample B: Older Adults (n=203)		Sample C: CKD Patients (n=55)		Total Sample (n=386)
	Correlation with Full JLO	Misclass- ification Rate (%)	Correlation with Full JLO	Misclass- ification Rate (%)	Correlation with Full JLO	Misclass- ification Rate (%)	Correlation with Full JLO	Misclass- ification Rate (%)
1–10 *	.850	N/A	.710	N/A	.790	N/A	.806	N/A
1–20 *	.935	N/A	.893	N/A	.942	N/A	.929	N/A
11–30 †	.969	7.8	.965	6.4	.949	5.5	.966	6.7
Form "Q" ‡	.934	9.4	.915	9.9	.906	16.4	.930	10.6
Form "S" ‡	.944	8.6	.929	10.8	.918	10.9	.940	10.1
Odd ‡	.945	11.7	.931	10.3	.939	7.3	.944	10.4
Even ‡	.926	6.3	.922	7.4	.931	12.7	.936	7.8
IRT-based (basal/ceiling of 6)	.978	3.1	.983	2.5	.976	3.8	.982	2.8
IRT-based (basal/ceiling of 3)	.922	7.0	.916	7.9	.870	16.4	.919	8.8

^*No appropriate cut-off for calculation of misclassification rate due to (a) absence of published cut-offs and (b) discrepant difficulty of these short forms relative to others (thereby precluding application of a simple multiplicative conversion).

^†Cut-off of ≥13 as unimpaired (Winegarden et al., 1998) used for calculation of misclassification rate.

^‡Score doubled prior to application of cut-off of ≥21 as unimpaired for calculation of misclassification rate.