SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Uluslararası Avrasya Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi / 2019 / Cilt: 10 - Sayı: 38

UNIVERSITY OF JYVASKYLA ACTIVE AGING SCALE: THE STUDY OF VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY

Didem DEMİR ERBİL
Oya HAZER
Pages
1157–1175
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

As a result of the analyzes, It was concluded that the scale was adequate to the Rasch model and the total scale score consisted of 4 subscales (Goals, Functional Capacity, Opportunity and Activity) including one-dimensional active aging implicit structure.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The purpose of this study is to conduct the Turkish validity and reliability analysis of Active Aging Scale (University of Jyvaskyla Active Aging Scale: UJACAS) developed by Rantaten and others (2018a).
📊
Key Findings & Data:Also participants consist of 146 people over 65 years of age.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:As a result of the analyzes, It was concluded that the scale was adequate to the Rasch model and the total scale score consisted of 4 subscales (Goals, Functional Capacity, Opportunity and Activity) including one-dimensional active aging implicit structure.
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Özet

The purpose of this study is to conduct the Turkish validity and reliability analysis of Active Aging Scale (University of Jyvaskyla Active Aging Scale: UJACAS) developed by Rantaten and others (2018a). Survey method was used in the research. Participants of the study are residents of Ankara Keçiören Nursing House and members of Turkey Pensioners' Association of Ankara Branch. Also participants consist of 146 people over 65 years of age. Data were collected by demographic information, Active Aging Scale and Satisfaction with Life Scale. IBM SPSS Statistics 23 program and Winsteps program were used to analyze the data. Test-retest reliability coefficient and Cronbach's alpha reliability coefficient values of the scale total and subdimensions were found to be over 0.90. In addition, Active Aging Scale (AAS) was found to be a good fit (internal structure validity) and reliable (PSI = 0.97) scale according to the goodness of fit statistics and reliability values of Rasch model. As a result of the analyzes, It was concluded that the scale was adequate to the Rasch model and the total scale score consisted of 4 subscales (Goals, Functional Capacity, Opportunity and Activity) including one-dimensional active aging implicit structure. Aforementioned scale was determined to be a reliable and valid measurement tool that can be used to determine the level of active aging of elderly individuals in Turkey who are 65 years of age and older.

🔖

Cite This Article

ERBİL, D. D., HAZER, O. (2019). UNIVERSITY OF JYVASKYLA ACTIVE AGING SCALE: THE STUDY OF VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY. Uluslararası Avrasya Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, Cilt: 10 - Sayı: 38, 1157–1175. https://ajindex.com/articles/339404

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (10)

  1. Aydıner Boylu, A. and Günay G. (2017). Life satisfaction and quality of life among the elderly: moderating effect of activities of daily living. Turkish Journal of Geriatrics, 20(1),61-69.
  2. Boudiny, K. (2013). Active ageing: from empty rhetoric to effective policy tool. Ageing & Society, 33, 1077- 1098. Canadian Index of Wellbeing. (2018). A Profile of Wellbeing in Waterloo Region. Waterloo, ON: Canadian Index of Wellbeing and University of Waterloo. Cumming, E. and Henry, W. (1961) Growing Old: The process of disengagement. New York: Basic Books. Dağlı, A. ve Baysal, N. (2016). Yaşam Doyumu Ölçeğinin Türkçeye Uyarlanması: Geçerlilik ve Güvenilirlik Çalışması. Elektronik Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi 15(59), 1252-1262.
  3. De Ayala, R. J. (2009). The theory and practice of item response theory. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
  4. Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J. and Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49 (1), 71-75.
  5. European Commission (2012).
  6. Active Ageing, Special Eurobarometer 378. Goldman D. P., Chen C., Zissimopoulos J. and Rawe J. W. (2018). John A. Hartford Foundation Aging Society Index. PNAS January, 115(3) 435-487.
  7. HelpAge International. (2015). Global AgeWatch Index 2015: Insight report. London: HelpAge International. http://reports.helpage.org/global-agewatch-index-2015-insight-report.pdf.
  8. Kurt, G., Beyaztas, F. and Erkol, Z. (2010). The problems of aged people and the life satisfaction. Turkish Journal of Forensic Medicine, 24(2), 32 – 39. Ng, K., Tareque M. and Chan, A. (2018). Empirical operationalization of successful aging: a successful aging index. Innovation in aging 2 (1), 931. Özer, M. and Karabulut, Ö. (2003). Yaşlılarda Yaşam Doyumu. Türk Geriatri Dergisi 6(2), 72-74.
  9. Özmete, E. (2008). Yaşlılıkta yaşamın anlamının refah göstergeleri ile yordanması. Aile ve Toplum Dergisi, 4(15), 7 – 20. Özmete, E. (2012). Yaşlanırken: Başarılı Yaşlanma. Biz Bir Aileyiz Dergisi Aile veSosyal Politikalar Bakanlığı Yayını 1(1). Özmete, E. (4-6 October 2013). International Istanbul Initiative on Aging. International Federation on Aging (IFA) Türkiye Yaşlılık Konseyi(TURYAK). İstanbul.
  10. Rantanen, T., Portegijs, E., Kokko, K., Rantakokko, M., Törmäkangas,T. and Saajanaho, M. (2018a). Developing an Assessment Method of Active Aging: University of Jyvaskyla Active Aging Scale. Journal of Aging and Health. doi:10.1177/0898264317750449. Rantanen,T., Saajanaho,M., Karavirta L., Siltanen, S., Rantakokko, M., Viljanen,