Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Geriatrics
Published in: BMC Geriatrics 1/2019

Open Access 01-12-2019 | Research article

Development and validation of elder-friendly urban spaces questionnaire (EFUSQ)

Authors: Azadeh Lak, Reihaneh Aghamolaei, Hamid R. Baradaran, Phyo K. Myint

Published in: BMC Geriatrics | Issue 1/2019

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Considering the lack of specific measurement tools to study elders’ perceptions in outdoor spaces, the study objectives were to derive and validate a questionnaire that assesses the essential features of elderly-friendly urban spaces.

Methods

We used closed-ended questions in two phases. In the first qualitative phase, a preliminary questionnaire was defined using grounded theory. In the second phase, the psychometric properties of the elderly-friendly urban spaces were examined through validity and reliability indices.

Results

The findings of the first phase led to a preliminary item extraction and questionnaire with 15 major domains based on three dimensions: place function, place preferences, and process. In the second phase, a 48-item questionnaire, based on three dimensions, in addition to personal characteristics, was introduced.

Conclusions

The Elderly-Friendly Urban Spaces Questionnaire (EFUSQ) can be adopted in various communities in understanding of how to create age-friendly urban spaces to promote active aging.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
World Health Organization. World report on ageing and health 2015. Genève: WHO; 2015.
2.
3.
Yen IH, Fandel Flood J, Thompson H, Anderson LA, Wong G. How design of places promotes or inhibits mobility of older adults: realist synthesis of 20 years of research. J Aging Health. 2014;26(8):1340–72.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
4.
Yung EH, Conejos S, Chan EH. Social needs of the elderly and active aging in public open spaces in urban renewal. Cities. 2016;52:114–22.CrossRef
5.
Pleson E, Nieuwendyk LM, Lee KK, Chaddah A, Nykiforuk CI, Schopflocher D. Understanding older adults’ usage of community green spaces in Taipei, Taiwan. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2014;11(2):1444–64.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
6.
Dellamora MC, Zecevic AA, Baxter D, Cramp A, Fitzsimmons D, Kloseck M. Review of assessment tools for baseline and follow-up measurement of age-friendliness. Ageing Int. 2015;40(2):149–64.CrossRef
7.
Yung EH, Conejos S, Chan EH. Public open spaces planning for the elderly: the case of dense urban renewal districts in Hong Kong. Land Use Policy. 2016;59:1–11.CrossRef
8.
World Health Organization. Global age-friendly cities: a guide. Genève: WHO; 2007.
9.
Kalache A, Gatti A. Active ageing: a policy framework. Adv Gerontol. 2003;11:7–18.PubMed
10.
Michael YL, Green MK, Farquhar SA. Neighborhood design and active aging. Health Place. 2006;12(4):734–40.PubMedCrossRef
11.
Paisana-Morais V, Bispo S, Encantado J, Carvalho C. Acessibilidade pedonal percebida em maiores de 65 anos: instrumento de avaliação. Psicologia, Saúde & Doenças. 2014;15(1):25–35.CrossRef
12.
Almeida MF. Age-friendly Walkable urban spaces: a participatory assessment tool. J Hous Elder. 2016;30(4):396–411.CrossRef
13.
Waltz CF, Bausell BR. Nursing research: design statistics and computer analysis: Davis FA; 1981.
14.
Lawshe CH. A quantitative approach to content validity 1. Pers Psychol. 1975;28(4):563–75.CrossRef
15.
Corbin J, Strauss A, Strauss AL. Basics of qualitative research: sage; 2014.
16.
Beck CT. Qualitative research: the evaluation of its credibility, fittingness, and auditability. West J Nurs Res. 1993;15(2):263–6.PubMedCrossRef
17.
Lincoln YS. Emerging criteria for quality in qualitative and interpretive research. Qual Inq. 1995;1(3):275–89.CrossRef
18.
Schwandt TA, Lincoln YS, Guba EG. Judging interpretations: but is it rigorous? Trustworthiness and authenticity in naturalistic evaluation. N Dir Eval. 2007;2007(114):11–25.CrossRef
19.
20.
Mohammadi E, Allahyari T, Darvishpoor Kakhaki A, Saraei H. Determining psychometric properties of Iranian active aging measurement instrument. Iran J Ageing. 2018;12(4):414–29.
21.
Ayre C, Scally AJ. Critical values for Lawshe’s content validity ratio: revisiting the original methods of calculation. Meas Eval Couns Dev. 2014;47(1):79–86.CrossRef
22.
Polit DF, Beck CT. The content validity index: are you sure you know what's being reported? Critique and recommendations. Res Nurs Health. 2006;29(5):489–97.PubMedCrossRef
23.
DeVon HA, Block ME, Moyle-Wright P, Ernst DM, Hayden SJ, Lazzara DJ, et al. A psychometric toolbox for testing validity and reliability. J Nurs Scholarsh. 2007;39(2):155–64.PubMedCrossRef
24.
Neuendorf KA. The content analysis guidebook: sage; 2016.
25.
Lacasse Y, Godbout C, Series F. Health-related quality of life in obstructive sleep apnoea. Eur Respir J. 2002;19(3):499–503.PubMedCrossRef
26.
Pett MA, Lackey NR, Sullivan JJ. Making sense of factor analysis: the use of factor analysis for instrument development in health care research: sage; 2003.CrossRef
27.
Wong KK-K. Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) techniques using SmartPLS. Mark Bull. 2013;24(1):1–32.
28.
Fornell C, Lacker D. Evaluating structural equation modeling for travel behavior research. Transportation Res B Univ Mich. 1981;37:1–25.
29.
Smith G, Del Sala S, Logie RH, Maylor EA. Prospective and retrospective memory in normal ageing and dementia: a questionnaire study. Memory. 2000;8(5):311–21.PubMedCrossRef
30.
Del Greco L, Walop W, McCarthy RHJCCMAJ. Questionnaire development: 2. Validity Reliability. 1987;136(7):699.
31.
Werts CE, Linn RL, Jöreskog KG. Intraclass reliability estimates: testing structural assumptions. Educ Psychol Meas. 1974;34(1):25–33.CrossRef
32.
Nunnally J, Bernstein I. Psychometric theory McGraw-hill new York Google scholar; 1978.
33.
Rivard S, Huff SL. Factors of success for end-user computing. Commun ACM. 1988;31(5):552–61.CrossRef
34.
Rashedi V, Asadi-Lari M, Foroughan M, Delbari A, Fadayevatan R. Prevalence of disability in Iranian older adults in Tehran, Iran: a population-based study. J Health Soc Sci. 2016;1(3):251–62.
35.
Lak A, Aghamolaei R, Azizkhani E. From segregation to integration of new developments in historic contexts: rural texture in Iran. J Settlements Spat Plann. 2018;9(1):59–66.CrossRef
36.
Sallis JF, Cervero RB, Ascher W, Henderson KA, Kraft MK, Kerr J. An ecological approach to creating active living communities. Annu Rev Public Health. 2006;27:297–322.CrossRef
37.
Buffel T, Phillipson C, Scharf T. Ageing in urban environments: developing ‘age-friendly’cities. Crit Soc Policy. 2012;32(4):597–617.CrossRef
38.
Ruza J, Kim JI, Leung I, Kam C, Ng SYM. Sustainable, age-friendly cities: An evaluation framework and case study application on Palo Alto, California. Sustain Cities Soc. 2015;14:390–6.CrossRef
39.
Annear M, Keeling S, Wilkinson T, Cushman G, Gidlow B, Hopkins H. Environmental influences on healthy and active ageing: a systematic review. Ageing Soc. 2014;34(4):590–622.CrossRef
40.
Pikora T, Giles-Corti B, Bull F, Jamrozik K, Donovan R. Developing a framework for assessment of the environmental determinants of walking and cycling. Soc Sci Med. 2003;56(8):1693–703.PubMedCrossRef
41.
Pollak PB. Liveable communities: an evaluation guide: AARP Washington, DC; 1999.
42.
Panayides P. Coefficient alpha: interpret with caution. Eur J Psychol. 2013;9(4):687–96.CrossRef
43.
Fleiss JL. Design and analysis of clinical experiments: John Wiley & Sons; 2011.
44.
Kano M, Rosenberg PE, Dalton SD. A global pilot study of Age-Friendly City indicators. Soc Indic Res. 2018;138:1205.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Development and validation of elder-friendly urban spaces questionnaire (EFUSQ)
Authors
Azadeh Lak
Reihaneh Aghamolaei
Hamid R. Baradaran
Phyo K. Myint
Publication date
01-12-2019
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Geriatrics / Issue 1/2019
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2318
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-019-1355-0

Other articles of this Issue 1/2019

BMC Geriatrics 1/2019 Go to the issue

Research article

A feminist phenomenology on the emotional labor and morality of live-in migrant care workers caring for older people in the community

Research article

The feasibility of assessing frailty and sarcopenia in hospitalised older people: a comparison of commonly used tools

Research article

Development and validation of a simple screening tool for caregiver grief in dementia caregiving

Research article

The efficacy and safety of exercise for prevention of fall-related injuries in older people with different health conditions, and differing intervention protocols: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Debate

Giant cell arteritis: is the clinical spectrum of the disease changing?

Research article

Use it or lose it: a qualitative study of the maintenance of physical activity in older adults

ACC 2024 Congress Coverage

Heart Failure Video

Year in Review: Heart failure and cardiomyopathies

Watch now

Watch this official video from ACC.24. Dr. Biykem Bozkurt discuss last year's major advances in heart failure and cardiomyopathies.

Semaglutide benefits people with type 2 diabetes and obesity-related heart failure

16-04-2024 Type 2 Diabetes News

Incentivised to exercise

11-04-2024 Lifestyle Modifications News

New intervention for STEMI-related cardiogenic shock

10-04-2024 Myocardial Infarction News

» View more highlights on the ACC 2024 congress hub page

Image Credits