Vicki A Freedman1, Emily M Agree2, Jennifer C Cornman3, Brenda C Spillman4, Judith D Kasper5. 1. Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. vfreedma@umich.edu. 2. Department of Population, Family, and Reproductive Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland. 3. Jennifer C. Cornman Consulting, Granville, Ohio. 4. The Urban Institute, Washington, DC. 5. Department of Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland.
Abstract
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY: Comprehensive measures of disability accommodations have been lacking in national health and aging studies. This article introduces measures of accommodations developed for the National Health and Aging Trends Study, evaluates their reliability, and explores the validity and reliability of hierarchical classification schemes derived from these measures. DESIGN AND METHODS: We examined test-retest reliability for questions about assistive device use, doing activities less often, and getting help from another person with both percentage agreement and kappa (N = 111). Summary measures across activities and several hierarchical classification schemes (e.g., no accommodation, devices/activity reductions only, help) were developed. For the latter, we also evaluated validity by examining correlations with measures of capacity and demographic characteristics (N = 326). RESULTS: Items about assistive device use and help in the last month were robust (most kappas 0.7-0.9). Activity reduction measures were moderately reliable (around 0.5) but still showed reasonable agreement. Reliabilities for summary measures were good for device use (0.78-0.89) and help (0.62-0.67) but lower, albeit acceptable, for activity reduction (0.53). Hierarchical classifications had acceptable reliability and levels demonstrated hierarchical properties. IMPLICATIONS: National Health and Aging Trends Study's self-care and mobility accommodation measures offer ample reliability to study adaptation to limitations and can be used to construct a reliable and valid hierarchy.
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY: Comprehensive measures of disability accommodations have been lacking in national health and aging studies. This article introduces measures of accommodations developed for the National Health and Aging Trends Study, evaluates their reliability, and explores the validity and reliability of hierarchical classification schemes derived from these measures. DESIGN AND METHODS: We examined test-retest reliability for questions about assistive device use, doing activities less often, and getting help from another person with both percentage agreement and kappa (N = 111). Summary measures across activities and several hierarchical classification schemes (e.g., no accommodation, devices/activity reductions only, help) were developed. For the latter, we also evaluated validity by examining correlations with measures of capacity and demographic characteristics (N = 326). RESULTS: Items about assistive device use and help in the last month were robust (most kappas 0.7-0.9). Activity reduction measures were moderately reliable (around 0.5) but still showed reasonable agreement. Reliabilities for summary measures were good for device use (0.78-0.89) and help (0.62-0.67) but lower, albeit acceptable, for activity reduction (0.53). Hierarchical classifications had acceptable reliability and levels demonstrated hierarchical properties. IMPLICATIONS: National Health and Aging Trends Study's self-care and mobility accommodation measures offer ample reliability to study adaptation to limitations and can be used to construct a reliable and valid hierarchy.
Authors: Douglas K Miller; Elena M Andresen; Theodore K Malmstrom; J Philip Miller; Fredric D Wolinsky Journal: J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci Date: 2006-01 Impact factor: 4.077
Authors: Vicki A Freedman; Judith D Kasper; Jennifer C Cornman; Emily M Agree; Karen Bandeen-Roche; Vincent Mor; Brenda C Spillman; Robert Wallace; Douglas A Wolf Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2011-06-29 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: L P Fried; C M Tangen; J Walston; A B Newman; C Hirsch; J Gottdiener; T Seeman; R Tracy; W J Kop; G Burke; M A McBurnie Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2001-03 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: L P Fried; K Bandeen-Roche; J D Williamson; P Prasada-Rao; E Chee; S Tepper; G S Rubin Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 1996-09 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Vicki A Freedman; Judith D Kasper; Brenda C Spillman; Emily M Agree; Vincent Mor; Robert B Wallace; Douglas A Wolf Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2013-12-12 Impact factor: 9.308