Development, Reliability and Validity of the Thai Healthy Aging Survey

We describe the development of a healthy aging survey for older Thai adults. Domains of physical, psychological, social and spiritual health were identified as relevant based on focus groups of older Thai adults and a synthesis of Western and Thai literature on aging. A 4-phase approach was employed. First, for each domain, we selected measures that had been used in Thailand and/or in other countries, and adapted them for older Thai adults. Second, 2 forward translations from English to Thai and 1 back translation were conducted. Third, the survey was pretested by using a general debriefing pretest and cognitive interviewing. Last, the final scales were selected based on factor analysis and psychometric properties assessed in a sample of 350 older Thai community-dwelling adults. Factor analysis explained 61.8 - 74.5 % of the variance within each domain. The final survey consisted of 72 items with 16 scales. Most scales achieved good reliability; 13 scales had a Cronbach’s alpha greater than 0.70 (range 0.48 and 0.93). A 2-week test-retest reliability showed acceptable Pearson correlations. The first-generation survey demonstrates good psychometric properties and provides the basis for measuring healthy aging in the older Thai adult population. The survey may also be applicable to other cultures

EVALUATION OF BIOELECTRICAL IMPEDANCE VECTOR ANALYSIS ACCORDING TO FALL RISK APPRAISAL CATEGORIZATION IN OLDER ADULTS

David H. Fukuda, Ladda Thiamwong, Joon-Hyuk Park, Jeffrey R. Stout, FACSM. University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL. BACKGROUND: Fall risk appraisal of older adults according to their physiological (i.e., balance/postural sway) and psychological capabilities (i.e., fear of falling/fall efficacy) has been proposed with individuals categorized into congruent (high fear/poor balance), incongruent (low fear/poor balance), irrational (high fear/normal balance), and rational (low fear/normal balance) groups. Bioelectrical impedance vector analysis (BIVA) allows for the examination of body tissues and is used in clinical conditions that may influence hydration and nutritional status. Thus, the underlying differences between fall risk appraisal groups may be highlighted through BIVA evaluation. The purpose of this study is to examine BIVA according to fall risk appraisal categorization in older adults. METHODS: Following completion of postural sway and fall efficacy assessments, a cross-sectional analysis of 121 older adults (age: 74.7 ± 7.4 y; body mass index: 26.9 ± 5.0 kg·m-2; 94 women and 27 men) separated into congruent (n=20), incongruent (n=24), irrational (n=21), and rational (n=56) groups was conducted. Raw, whole-body BIA parameters (50 kHz), including resistance, reactance, and phase angle, were compared between groups using ANOVA, while BIVA procedures were performed with two-sample Hotelling’s T2 tests. RESULTS:Significant differences between groups were found for reactance (p=0.007) but not resistance (p=0.590) or phase angle (p=0.315). Post-hoc analyses showed greater Xc (p=0.021; d=-0.807) in the rational group (59.2 ± 13.3 Ω) compared to the congruent group (46.7 ± 12.0 Ω). BIVA evaluation confirmed differences between rational and congruent groups (T2 = 9.6; p=0.012), and further identified potential differences between the rational and incongruent groups (T2 = 8.5; p=0.019). CONCLUSION: Fall risk appraisal groups differentiated primarily by the physiological risk of falling may exhibit unique body tissue characteristics estimated by BIA and highlighted by BIVA. Specifically, reactance values that may be indicative of body cell mass and/or cell membrane integrity appear to distinguish between these groups. Grant or funding information: Funded by NIH R03 AG06979

Effects of an mhealth brisk walking intervention on increasing physical activity in older people with cognitive frailty : pilot randomized controlled trial

202009 bcrcVersion of RecordPublishe

A Framework for Understanding Modifications to Measures for Diverse Populations

OBJECTIVES: Research on health disparities and determinants of health disparities among ethnic minorities and vulnerable older populations necessitates use of self-report measures. Most established instruments were developed on mainstream populations and may need adaptation for research with diverse populations. Although information is increasingly available on various problems using these measures in diverse groups, there is little guidance on how to modify the measures. We provide a framework of issues to consider when modifying measures for diverse populations. METHODS: We describe reasons for considering modifications, the types of information that can be used as a basis for making modifications, and the types of modifications researchers have made. We recommend testing modified measures to assure they are appropriate. Suggestions are made on reporting modifications in publications using the measures. DISCUSSION: The issues open a dialogue about what appropriate guidelines would be for researchers adapting measures in studies of ethnically diverse populations