Development of a social contact self-efficacy scale for 'third agers' in Japan.

BACKGROUND: "Third agers" are people over retirement age in relatively good health; third agers make up an increasing percentage of the global population as the world's longevity increases. Therefore, the challenge of prolonging a healthy third age and shortening the unhealthy period during the "fourth age" in the global health and social contexts is important in this process. However, no means to measure and support this has been developed as yet. We developed the Social Contact Self-Efficacy Scale for Third Agers (SET) and evaluated its reliability and validity.
METHODS: We used a self-administered mail survey covering 2,600 randomly selected independent older adults living in Yokohama, Japan. The construct validity of the SET was determined using exploratory factor and confirmatory factor analyses. Its criterion-related validity was assessed using the General Self-Efficacy Scale (GSES), the Japan Science and Technology Agency Index of Competence (JST-IC), and subjective health status.
RESULTS: In total, 1,139 older adults provided responses. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses identified eight items within two factors: social space mobility and social support relationship. The final model had a Cronbach's alpha 0.834, goodness-of-fit index 0.976, adjusted goodness-of-fit index 0.955, comparative fit index 0.982, and root mean square error of approximation 0.050. There was good correlation between scale scores and the GSES (r = 0.552, p < 0.001), JST-IC (r = 0.495, p < 0.001) and subjective health status (r = 0.361, p < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: The SET showed sufficient reliability and validity to assess self-efficacy in promoting social contact among third agers. This scale may help third agers in gaining and expanding opportunities for social contact, which can improve their physical health and quality of life and contribute to care prevention and healthy longevity.

Introduction

The concept of life stages has altered dramatically in the 21st century, as people live increasingly longer. Laslett (1996) posited a new framework for age-independent life stages, consisting of four functional periods or ‘ages’. The first age is the age of dependence and socialization; the second is the age of independence and reproduction, family and responsibility to society, the third is the age of achievement and the fourth is the age of dependence, senility and death [1]. The fourth age is characterized by functional decline and increased dependency. In contrast, the third age, which starts with retirement, is a period of relatively good health with the potential for active social engagement forming a solid base for healthy ageing. In developed countries around the world, the proportion of ‘third agers’ in the population is increasing. The great challenge for third agers is to prolong this period healthily and therefore shorten the unhealthy period of the fourth age as much as possible [2, 3]. As of 2020, the proportion of older people in Japan’s population was 28.8% [4], the highest in the world. By 2030, one in every three people will be 65 years old or more, and one in five 75 or older. Japanese life expectancy is among the highest in the world and it keeps on increasing. Along with the extension of life span, healthy life expectancy—number of years people are expected to live in good health, that is, without needing long-term care and support—is also increasing. It was 74.79 years old for women, and 72.14 years old for men in 2020 [5]. However, the gap between life expectancy (87.32 years old in women and 81.25 years old in men) and healthy life expectancy has remained the same, 9.1 years in men and 12.5 years in women.

Previous research has shown that one key to health and longevity among third agers is their relationships with society [6]. Especially after retirement, with accompanying changes in their environment and relationships, individuals often face challenges such as having to remain homebound, declining ability to perform activities of daily living (ADLs), social isolation, decline in quality of life, and increased risk of death [7]. In contrast, socially active older adults have less cognitive decline [8, 9] and are at lower risk of transitioning to needing long-term care and support [10]. Moreover, maintaining social contact has long been known to be related to health and well-being in old age [11], and positive effects of social relationships among third agers have been reported in several recent studies [12-14].

There are two elements in social relationships that contribute to improved health and longevity among third agers, namely, “social space mobility” and “social support relationships”. “Social space mobility” is defined as extent of individuals’ social contacts, as related to both living space and mobility. “Social support relationships” is defined as interactions with individuals’ social contacts as well as the ability to build and maintain new social relationships (including with friends, neighbors, public and private support agencies, and primary care physicians) while preserving existing relationships in one’s retired life. Enhanced social participation among older people means maintaining wide social space mobility and enhanced social support relationships. Previous studies have shown that older adults who maintain a wider range of activities have improved physical function and less physical decline [15]. Factors that reduce the range of activities, such as poor access to safe transportation, also inhibit social participation [16]. Older adults with good social networks, including many close friends and associates and invitations to go out and participate in activities, are more likely to participate in social activities [17]. This suggests a relationship between social contact and social space mobility. It is also likely that social networks affect social contact. Older people with good social participation have also been found to be more likely to strengthen their emotional ties with others [18]. Therefore, social contact that expands social space mobility and social support relationships can increase social participation and lead to a healthy and longer life among third agers who are living with changes in their social space and social relations owing to aging. In other words, such social contact can promote health among third agers, enrich their personal lives, and extend their healthy life expectancy. Thus, it is important to promote social contact among third agers.

Self-efficacy is an important concept in enabling behaviors that promote social contact among third agers. Bandura defined self-efficacy as individual belief in personal ability to succeed in specific situations or accomplish a task, and stated that it affects behavior [19]. Based on the premise that preventive actions by individuals are effective for healthy longevity of older adult, it is possible to increase self-efficacy for social contact among third agers, which will enable them to take actions to identify, maintain, and expand social contacts. Social contact self-efficacy in this study is defined as the ability of third agers to act toward achieving desirable levels of social participation. Improving social contact self-efficacy in third agers can also support improved physical functioning and mental health among older adults, leading to a more rewarding life and healthier longevity. However, so far, no scales have been developed to evaluate and support this social contact among third agers. To evaluate and support the social contact of third agers, it is essential to develop a scale that allows us to understand and support their social contact. There are two reasons that demonstrate the importance of developing a measure specifically for third agers. First, health promotion in third agers will lead to prevention of the need for health and nursing care in later years, thus extending the healthy life expectancy of these individuals. Second, by promoting the health of third agers, the community can be revitalized to create a healthy community environment for older people. We developed the Social Contact Self-Efficacy Scale for Third Agers (SET) and examined its reliability and validity.

Methods

Phase 1: Developing the instrument

First, we developed a pool of items based on the literature review. We searched PubMed, Web of Science, and the Ichushi-web for relevant articles from the perspective of indicators that third agers aim to achieve in order to live a fulfilling third age period. We searched the literature using the following keywords: third age, retirement, elderly, social participation, vitality, reason for living, healthy longevity, and quality of life [20-24]. An item pool was created based on the information obtained from the literature. Item selection criteria were based on two aspects: (1) indicators of enhancement and extension of the third age period; (2) practically beneficial items: the items can be variable across interventions and each item must have clarity of logic, meaning, and readability for ease of understanding among third agers. Using these perspectives, we identified a pool of draft items and made some changes. This resulted in a final list of 34 items.

Second, the pool of items was reviewed by three experts, one researcher, and five older adults. The experts were public health nurses with experience in supporting healthy older adults. The researcher specialized in community health nursing and is studying adaptation to changes in the environment of the elderly after retirement. The older adults were selected from residents of Yokohama City who have not received nursing care certification. They assessed the content validity, face validity, and practical usefulness of the items. Following the reviewers’ opinions, we revised the wording of each item. As a result, the modified scale was reduced to 18 items. Each item was scored on a four-point Likert scale, ranging from 0 (Not confident at all) to 3 (Completely confident).

Phase 2: Validating the instrument

Participants and settings

The survey was conducted with 2,600 community-dwelling elderly aged 65 years and older living in Yokohama City. The subjects were randomly sampled and selected by the Civic Affairs Bureau from the City of Yokohama’s Basic Resident Registers. In calculating the sample size, we first assumed a response rate of 30%. This was calculated on the basis of two assumptions indicating the response rate would be slightly lower than that of previous studies. First, the response rate in similarly designed previous studies targeting older people was generally 30%–50%, and second, a certain number of the independent older people targeted in this study were expected to be employed. Next, we assumed that factor analysis would require more than 10 times the number of data items. Furthermore, the design involved conducting exploratory factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis in separate groups. Because the tentative version of the item pool had 34 items, we calculated 34 items × 10 times × 2 groups × response rate of 30%, resulting in 2,250 respondents. Finally, when randomly selecting the sample from the basic resident register, it was impossible to exclude those who were certified as needing nursing care owing to the nature of the register system; we therefore increased the sample size by 20%, to 2,600 people, assuming that approximately 18% (the rate of certification for needing nursing care in Yokohama City) would be excluded. The inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) age 65 years and over; (2) living in the community (not in a hospital or in residential care); and (3) being an independent older person. The criteria for being an independent older person was identified according to the Certified Level of Need for Long-Term Care National Insurance of Japan (Kaigo Hoken in Japanese). Individuals who were not certified as needing long-term care or support were considered independent older people. The exclusion criteria were as follows: (1) less than 65 years old or unknown age; (2) not living in the community (i.e., living in a hospital or in residential care); and (3) having a certified need for long-term care or support. Participants were randomly sampled and selected by the Civic Affairs Bureau of the City of Yokohama’s Basic Resident Registers. The participants were recruited and the research took place in Yokohama City, Japan. The City of Yokohama was selected for two reasons. This is because Yokohama is the largest ordinance-designated city in Japan, and the aging of the population is expected to be prominent mainly in urban areas. Yokohama is a city with a population of about 37,000, consisting of 18 administrative districts. The elderly population accounts for 24.6%, of which about 18% are certified as needing long-term care.

The data collection period was September 2020, and the method was to mail explanatory documents (informed consent) and questionnaires to the target people. Participants were considered to be participants by completing the self-administered survey form and returning it to the research institution using a return envelope. A total of 1139 study participants completed the questionnaire, and 978 were considered valid responses, excluding those identified as needing long-term care and those under the age of 65 (filled in by the target’s child). The analysis included 790 people with no missing items on the SET or criterion-related validity index items. The basic demographics of the 188 respondents who were excluded owing to missing response data are as follows: the average age was 76.9 years and 59% were women. We believe that the exclusion of the missing data did not cause significant bias in the data. Additionally, the response rate in this study was adequate compared with previous studies among similar older adult populations.

Measures

The participants’ demographic characteristics included age, sex, working status, frequency of going out, residence years, people living together, disease under treatment (Table 1). Participants responded to 18 items on the modified SET on a four-case Likert scale: 0 = Not confident at all, 1 = Slightly unconfident, 2 = Slightly Confident, 3 = Completely confident. Three measures were used to assess the construct validity of the SET. The first was the General Self-Efficacy Scale (GSES) [25], a measure of an individual’s high and low general self-efficacy perceptions, and a higher score indicating greater self-efficacy. The second was the Japan Science and Technology Agency Index of Competence (JST-IC) [26], which measures the ability of older people to perform various activities. Higher scores indicate greater activity ability. The third scale was for subjective health status, and was a single question about perceptions of health answered on a four-point scale. Responses are: 1 = Very healthy, 2 = Quite healthy, 3 = Not very healthy, 4 = Not at all healthy. The score was reversed with SPSS, and was used in four stages, where a higher score showed better health.

Table 1

Participants’ demographic characteristics.

n = 790
		Number or Mean±SDa	% or (Range)
Age (years)		73.7±5.8	(65–93)
	65–74 years old	472	59.7
	75 years old and older	307	38.9
	Missing	11	1.4
Sex	Female	407	51.5
	Missing	2	0.3
Working employment	Yes	254	32.2
	Missing	1	0.1
Frequency of going out		4.4±2.0	(0–7)
	Missing	8	1.0
Residence years		31.5±17.4	(0.3–84)
	Missing	22	2.8
People living together	Number	1.3±0.9	(0–5)
	Yes	650	82.3
Living status	Living with spouse	565	71.5
	Living with children	259	32.8
	Living alone	138	17.5
	Others	154	19.5
	Missing	2	0.3
Disease under treatment	Number	1.4±1.1	(0–7)
	Yes	598	75.7
Type of disease	High blood pressure	295	37.3
	Visual impairment	124	15.7
	Musculoskeletal diseases	101	12.8
	Diabetes mellitus	86	10.9
	Urinary system disease	78	9.9
	Heart disease	69	8.7
	Others	280	35.4
	Missing	27	3.4

aSD: standard deviation

Statistical analyses

All analyses used IBM SPSS Statistics 25.0 and Amos 25.0 (Chicago, Illinois, USA). Item analysis was used to investigate the reliability of the scale and exploratory factor analysis to investigate the factor structure of the scale. Exclusion criteria for item analysis included distribution (“Slightly confident” and “Completely confident” were over 90%; kurtosis and skewness were over ± 1.0), rates of response difficulty (non-respondents ≥ 5%), correlations between items (correlation coefficient > 0.6), item–total analysis (correlation coefficient r ≥ 0.6 or p < 0.05), and good–poor analysis (no significant differences between the highest- and lowest-scoring groups).

We randomly divided the total sample (n = 790) into two sub-samples for cross-validation: group 1 (n = 395) for exploratory factor analysis and group 2 (n = 395) for confirmatory factor analysis. We examined the items remaining after item analysis using exploratory factor analysis (maximum likelihood method) with promax rotation [27]. Using the eigenvalues and scree plots, we estimated that there were two factors. We then repeated the exploratory factor analysis, assuming two factors and excluding items with item loadings < 0.4. We determined factor reliability by a Cronbach’s alpha ≥ 0.7, and construct validity was verified with confirmatory factor analysis. We examined model fit using the goodness-of-fit index (GFI), adjusted GFI (AGFI), comparative fit index (CFI), and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA). The model was accepted if the GFI and AGFI were ≥ 0.90, CFI was ≥ 0.95, and RMSEA was ≤ 0.05 [28]. We also examined criterion-related validity by correlating the SET total score with the GSES and JST-IC total score and subjective health perception. We evaluated a correlation of ≥ 0.50 as adequate.

Ethical considerations

This study was conducted with the approval of the Institutional Review Board of the Medical Department of Yokohama City University School (Approval No. A200700002). All study participants provided written informed consent and completed the questionnaire, which was unsigned to ensure their anonymity. The informed consent form explained the voluntary nature of participation, management of data, and intention to publish the results.

Results

Demographic characteristics

Table 1 shows the demographic characteristics of the participants. The mean age was 73.7 years. In all, 51.5% were female, 32.2% were employed (including full-time and part-time), 82.3% lived with their spouse, children or others, and 75.7% had a medical condition currently being treated. On average, participants went out 4.4 days/week, and the average number of years of residence was 31.5 years. Laslett, who proposed the definition of “third age”, pointed out that third agers are free from social obligations, but he did not necessarily refer to whether they may be employed. In previous studies, third agers were included without distinguishing between those who were working and those who were not; therefore, we decided to include third agers who were working in this study.

Item analysis

Table 2 shows the item analysis results. One item (item 4) met the exclusion criteria for population distribution, one item (item 16) met the exclusion criteria for kurtosis and skewness and nine items (items 6, 7, 11–15, 17, and 18) met the exclusion criteria for inter-item correlation. However, items 7, 11, 13 and 18 were retained. First, we compared items 6 and 7, and items 17 and 18, based on the correlation, and decided to keep items 7 and 18. These two items had higher item–total correlations than items 6 and 17 and were considered to be significant items on the scale. Next, we compared items 11 to 15 based on the correlation. We decided to keep items 11 and 13 because item 13 was less difficult than the correlated items 12 and 15, and item 11 was considered more familiar to third agers than item 14, and was considered to be a significant item on the scale. Seven items (items 4, 6, 12, 14–17) were therefore excluded and 11 items (items 1–3, 5, 7–11, 13 and 18) were retained for the factor analysis.

Table 2

Item analysis of the “social contact self-efficacy scale for third agers”.

n = 790
No	Item	Population distribution (%)a	Kurtosis b	Skewness b	Item Difficulty c	Inter-item correlation d	Item-total correlation e	Good-poor analysis f	Exclusion
1	I can try to go out as much as possible to avoid stay withdrawn.	89.6	0.139	-0.761	2.6	-	.604**	.000**
2	I can find a little enjoyment in everyday life.	88.7	-0.189	-0.470	2.4	-	.628**	.000**
3	I can find a relaxing place in a familiar community.	79.9	-0.007	-0.489	3.3	-	.611**	.000**
4	I can go shopping for groceries and daily necessities independently.	95.3	4.854	-2.170	2.5	-	.422**	.000**	×
5	I can use facilities and public services that are useful for my health.	72.0	-0.649	-0.445	3.2	-	.632**	.000**
6	I can act to gain new knowledge and learn something new.	75.3	-0.579	-0.486	2.7	+	.712**	.000**	×
7	I can try new things positively.	63.4	-0.773	-0.055	2.4	+	.724**	.000**
8	I can notice even slight changes in my health.	88.5	-0.181	-0.338	2.2	-	.514**	.000**
9	I can easily consult my doctor or specialist about health concerns.	78.9	-0.522	-0.473	2.9	-	.554**	.000**
10	I can reach out to person in need on the streets.	70.5	-0.621	-0.100	2.2	-	.582**	.000**
11	I can use my experience and abilities to help others.	64.3	-0.583	-0.142	2.9	+	.692**	.000**
12	I can participate in voluntary groups and group activities in the community.	54.2	-0.681	-0.008	2.6	+	.636**	.000**	×
13	I can enjoy interacting with people in everyday life.	74.2	-0.381	-0.353	2.4	+	.708**	.000**
14	I can take a responsible role in a group or organization.	53.5	-0.616	-0.019	2.4	+	.698**	.000**	×
15	I can expand my social circle from friends and acquaintances.	55.4	-0.539	-0.013	2.8	+	.739**	.000**	×
16	I can use the internet to communicate with my family and people around me.	57.0	-1.240	-0.192	2.5	-	.425**	.000**	×
17	I can tell my wishes for medical treatment and care at the end of life.	81.3	-0.145	-0.661	2.5	+	.557**	.000**	×
18	I am able to support each other with my family and others in times of need.	84.8	-0.072	-0.579	2.0	+	.631**	.000**

**: P<0.001

Exclusion criteria of the item analyses

a: Percentage of ‘Slightly Confident’ and ‘Completely confident’ were over 90% of the sample.

b: Kurtosis and skewness were over ±1.0 of the sample.

c: Percentage of non-respondents is over 5% of the sample which excluding those who were certified as needing long-term care and those under 65 years of age.(n = 978)

d: Correlation between each item is over 0.6.(Rounded to the second decimal place)

e: Correlation coefficient between the item and the total of all the items (but with exception of the item) is over 0.6 or p<0.05

f: Difference of the average score between the highest- and lowest-scoring groups is not significant difference (p≥0.05)

Factor structure

The results of the exploratory factor analysis are shown in Table 3. The eigenvalues were 5.145 for one factor, 1.092 for two factors and 0.841 for three factors. The eigenvalues and scree plots suggested a two-factor model. We repeated the exploratory factor analysis with promax rotation until the factor loadings exceeded 0.4. We then excluded items 7, 11 and 13 because the factor loading did not exceed 0.4 in any analysis. Differences in factor loadings between each factor became apparent, allowing the factors to be explained theoretically. Excluding items with loadings of less than 0.4 yielded a two-factor solution. For the final version of the scale, eight items were extracted from the two factors. Factor 1 contained four items (items 1, 2, 3, and 5) and could be interpreted as “social space mobility”. This is the self-efficacy to expand that social space during the third age period. Factor 2 included four items (items 8, 9, 10 and 18) and can be interpreted as “social support relationship”. This is the self-efficacy to build a social support relationship in the third age period. Factor loadings were above 0.4 for each factor, and the cumulative contribution of the two factors explained 47.1% of the variance. The correlation coefficient between the two factors was 0.67 (Table 3).

Table 3

Exploratory factor analysis of the “social contact self-efficacy scale for third agers”.

n = 395
No.	Item		Factor Ⅰ	Factor Ⅱ	Total scale communality
			social space mobility	social support relationship
1	I can try to go out as much as possible to avoid stay withdrawn.		0.77	-0.06	0.53
3	I can find a relaxing place in a familiar community.		0.71	0.03	0.58
2	I can find a little enjoyment in everyday life.		0.68	0.12	0.53
5	I can use facilities and public services that are useful for my health.		0.62	0.01	0.39
9	I can easily consult my doctor or specialist about health concerns.		-0.07	0.76	0.44
8	I can notice even slight changes in my health.		-0.02	0.68	0.51
18	I am able to support each other with my family and others in times of need.		0.09	0.58	0.37
10	I can reach out to person in need on the streets.		0.16	0.49	0.41
Cronbach’s alpha			0.80	0.75	0.83
Cumulative contribution (%)			40.3	47.1
Factor correlation coefficients (r)		Factor Ⅰ	1.00
		Factor Ⅱ	0.67	1.00

Maximum likelihood solution method with promax rotation.

Internal consistency and validity

Two factors were entered as latent factors in the confirmatory factor analysis model. The model fit showed GFI = 0.976, AGFI = 0.955, CFI = 0.982, and RMSEA = 0.050. These results met the appropriate criteria for all subjects (Fig 1). Construct validity was therefore demonstrated. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were 0.80 for factor 1, 0.75 for factor 2, and 0.83 for the entire scale.

Fig 1

Confirmatory factor analysis of the “social contact self-efficacy Scale for Third Agers (SET)”.

Pearson’s correlation analysis showed a correlation between the total SET score and the GSES, JST-IC, and subjective health status. The SET showed a high positive correlation with the GSES (r = 0.552, p < 0.001) and JST-IC (r = 0.495, p < 0.001) and a moderate positive correlation with subjective health status (r = 0.361, p < 0.001) (Table 4).

Table 4

Criteria-related validity of “the social contact self-efficacy Scale for Third Agers (SET)”.

n = 790
Factors	Mean (SD)	GSES	JST-IC	Subjective health
Ⅰ:social space mobility	8.7(2.3)	.507**	.451**	.378**
Ⅱ:social support relationship	8.4(2.2)	.477**	.433**	.263**
Total 8 items	17.1(4.1)	.552**	.495**	.361**

Pearson’s correlation coefficients between the total score of validity measure of the SET

SD: standard deviation

GSES: the General Self-Efficacy Scale

JST-IC:the Japan Science and Technology Agency Index of Competence

**: p<0.001

Discussion

The SET shows sufficient reliability and validity for a scale of social contact self-efficacy for third agers in Japan. The originality of this scale is that it focuses on self-efficacy for social contact. The previous scales associated with social contacts of older people have been limited to quantitative single measurements, such as those that measure the scope of daily life-space [29], and the number of people who can provide social support when necessary [30]. The SET is also original in that it can be measured in terms of both the social space mobility and social support relationship of third agers.

The first element of the SET is items reflecting self-efficacy for social space mobility, and a high score for this element indicates that older adults are highly motivated to expand the scope of their activities. Third agers are identified as having a need to acquire new places to go as a result of changes in their social activities. Decreased mobility of living spaces is known to have a negative impact on health, and previous studies have found associations with falls, fractures [31], physical functional vulnerability [32], mortality [33, 34] and subjective health status [35]. In summary, measuring self-efficacy for expanding social space mobility will lead to finding new places to go, enjoyment, and resources useful for health in individuals’ immediate surroundings, and to going out. Therefore meaningful both in the third age, and in preventing the onset of the fourth age for as long as possible.

The second component of the SET reflects self-efficacy for social support relationships. High scores on this factor suggest high levels of motivation to expand the social networks. Third agers have a need to develop new relationships that allow them to have a sense of belonging and responsibility. For older people, an expanded social network improves quality of life [36, 37] and facilitates access to social support [38-40]. It has also been suggested that poor social networks are associated with mental illness, and that socially disconnected people are more likely to commit suicide than others [41]. Measuring self-efficacy for social support relationship expansion can lead to having opportunities to think about one’s own health so as to maintain relationships with others, and to expand new relationships that involve “caring for each other”, which could be important when considering the transition from the third to the fourth age.

The clinical usefulness of the scale is threefold. First, the SET can help third agers to understand and expand their social contacts after retirement. Second, it can help professionals to assess individuals’ social contact and provide personalized information and advice on social participation. Third, the SET can also provide useful information for building a system and community in which third agers are more likely to make social contact. In other words, this scale can be useful in motivating individuals and building the community, and as a result, the people involved can improve their social contacts within society. In the future, effective programs and systems can disseminate the SET to help promote social contact opportunities for third agers and extend the third age phase, helping older adults to maintain physical functioning and improve their quality of life.

Limitation

This study had a few limitations. First, it was cross-sectional and its predictive validity is unknown. Longitudinal studies are needed to determine the degree to which SET scores are related to social contact in the future. Second, although the study setting was a major city in Japan, according to previous research [42], social contact beliefs and behaviors among third agers may vary by culture and resources in different regions or countries. Further studies are needed to investigate the construct validity of the SET in other regions and countries that may have different characteristics from the present participants.

Appendix.

The SET English version.

(TIF)

Click here for additional data file.

The SET Japanese version.

(TIF)

Click here for additional data file.

Anonymized minimal data set.

(CSV)

Click here for additional data file.

1 Apr 2021

PONE-D-21-01370

Development of a social contact self-efficacy scale for ‘third agers’ in Japan

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Tadaka,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Several major revisions are needed in the present form.

See the Reviewer’s comments and respond them appropriately.

Please submit your revised manuscript by May 16 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Masaki Mogi

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

In your Methods section, please provide a justification for the sample size used in your study, including any relevant power calculations (if applicable).

In your Methods section, please provide additional information about the participant recruitment method and the demographic details of your participants. Please ensure you have provided sufficient details to replicate the analyses such as: a) a description of any inclusion/exclusion criteria that were applied to participant recruitment, b) a description of how participants were recruited, and c) descriptions of where participants were recruited and where the research took place.

In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

At this time, please address the following queries:

4a)         Please clarify the sources of funding (financial or material support) for your study. List the grants or organizations that supported your study, including funding received from your institution.

4b)         State what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role in your study, please state: “The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”

4c)          If any authors received a salary from any of your funders, please state which authors and which funders.

4d)         If you did not receive any funding for this study, please state: “The authors received no specific funding for this work.”

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Thank you for the opportunity to review the manuscript reporting the development of a social contact self-efficacy scale for Japanese "third agers." The manuscript is well-written, and the topic is interesting. Nonetheless, I found the theoretical reasoning for the construct "social contact self-efficacy" is underdeveloped in the current manuscript. The scale items' face validity looks somewhat questionable to me, which could hinder the adoption of this scale in future studies. The following comments and suggestions are for the authors’ considerations.

1. Why is it important to develop a measurement specifically for the third agers? How's this group's social contact similar to and different from people in other age groups?

2. Among the 2,600 potential participants, 1,139 responded. Is there any risk of self-selection bias? For example, 82.3% of the study sample lived with a spouse, children, or others? Is this rate expected for the older adult population in Yokohama city?

3. In the conclusion section of the abstract, the authors mentioned, "this scale may help third agers in gaining and expanding opportunities for social contact." How can a scale help third agers in gaining contact?

4. The authors proposed two possible elements in social relationships, i.e., social space mobility and social support network. Although some definitions of the two concepts were provided in lines 58-60, I still found myself not so clear about these two aspects' meaning. Is social space mobility related to living space and mobility or purely how diverse one's social network is? Does social support network sound like the frequency of contact with people in the network? The social support network is a widely used term in social relationship research. It is a nuanced concept that could include network size, frequency of contact, and relationships with others in the network. The definitions here seem not clear enough.

5. The proposed two possible elements in social relationships are intriguing. However, what is the theoretical rationale that supports this taxonomy? How are these two aspects related to self-efficacy? Any reference to support the legitimacy of this taxonomy?

6. Consider defining the concept "social contact self-efficacy."

7. Line 96, the author mentioned "practically beneficial" as a criterion for selecting scale items. Could you please elaborate what are the practical benefits that were considered?

8. Line 128, what’s recovery rate?

9. The face validity of the scale items shown in table 3 could be somewhat questionable. For example, Item 9, "I can easily consult my doctor or specialist about health concerns," and item 8, "I can notice even slight changes in my health." How do these two items related to social contact self-efficacy?

10. Line 272, the authors argued that a higher score on the social support network dimension indicates higher motivation to expand the social network. I am not sure if items 8 and 9 could reflect that.

Editing suggestions

11. Line 111, the survey was conducted “with” 2,600 community-dwelling older adults instead of “on”.

12. Line 125, here the deficiencies mean missingness?

13. “The basic attributes of the 188 individuals who were excluded owing to missing data were mean age 76.9 years and 59% women." This sentence appears awkward. Please rephrase it.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

15 May 2021

Response letter

Dr. Masaki Mogi

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

12 May 2021

Dear Dr. Masaki Mogi,

Thank you very much for your e-mail regarding our manuscript, “Development of a social contact self-efficacy scale for ‘third agers’ in Japan” (PONE-D-21-01370). We are delighted to hear that it is potentially acceptable for publication in PLOS ONE. Please find attached a revised version of our manuscript.

Your comments and those of the reviewers were highly insightful and enabled us to greatly improve the quality of our manuscript. Below, we present our point-by-point responses to each of the comments made by the reviewer.

We look forward to hearing from you regarding our resubmission. We would be glad to respond to any further questions and comments that you may have.

In closing, the contact information for Etsuko Tadaka, Principal Investigator, has changed since April. The new contact information is below, and the manuscript has been revised as well. Thank you very much in advance for your kind support.

E-mail: e_tadaka@pop.med.hokudai.ac.jp (ET)

Sincerely yours,

Moemi Oki, MSN, RN, PHN

Department of Community Health Nursing, Graduate School of Medicine, Yokohama City University, Yokohama, Kanagawa, Japan

Tel: +81 80 1156 2407 E-mail: mopmick0504@gmail.com

1) Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf

and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

Author’s Response:

We have checked PLOS ONE's style requirements and modified the manuscript accordingly. Thank you for your comment.

2) In your Methods section, please provide a justification for the sample size used in your study, including any relevant power calculations (if applicable).

Author’s Response:

In our Methods section, we provided the justification for the sample size used in the study, including relevant power calculations.

Page9, Lines 127, Methods

In calculating the sample size, we first assumed a response rate of 30%. This was calculated on the basis of two assumptions indicating the response rate would be slightly lower than that of previous studies. First, the response rate in similarly designed previous studies targeting older people was generally 30%–50%, and second, a certain number of the independent older people targeted in this study were expected to be employed. Next, we assumed that factor analysis would require more than 10 times the number of data items. Furthermore, the design involved conducting exploratory factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis in separate groups. Because the tentative version of the item pool had 34 items, we calculated 34 items × 10 times × 2 groups × response rate of 30%, resulting in 2,250 respondents. Finally, when randomly selecting the sample from the basic resident register, it was impossible to exclude those who were certified as needing nursing care owing to the nature of the register system; we therefore increased the sample size by 20%, to 2,600 people, assuming that approximately 18% (the rate of certification for needing nursing care in Yokohama City) would be excluded.

In your Methods section, please provide additional information about the participant recruitment method and the demographic details of your participants. Please ensure you have provided sufficient details to replicate the analyses such as:

a) a description of any inclusion/exclusion criteria that were applied to participant recruitment, b) a description of how participants were recruited, and c) descriptions of where participants were recruited and where the research took place.

Author’s Response:

The inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) age 65 years and over; (2) living in the community (not in a hospital or in residential care); and (3) being an independent older person. The criteria for being an independent older person was identified according to the Certified Level of Need for Long-Term Care National Insurance of Japan (Kaigo Hoken in Japanese). Individuals who were not certified as needing long-term care or support were considered independent older people. The exclusion criteria were as follows: (1) less than 65 years old or unknown age; (2) not living in the community (i.e., living in a hospital or in residential care); and (3) having a certified need for long-term care or support. Participants were randomly sampled and selected by the Civic Affairs Bureau of the City of Yokohama's Basic Resident Registers. The participants were recruited and the research took place in Yokohama City, Japan.

Page9, Lines 140, Methods

The inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) age 65 years and over; (2) living in the community (not in a hospital or in residential care); and (3) being an independent older person. The criteria for being an independent older person was identified according to the Certified Level of Need for Long-Term Care National Insurance of Japan (Kaigo Hoken in Japanese). Individuals who were not certified as needing long-term care or support were considered independent older people. The exclusion criteria were as follows: (1) less than 65 years old or unknown age; (2) not living in the community (i.e., living in a hospital or in residential care); and (3) having a certified need for long-term care or support. Participants were randomly sampled and selected by the Civic Affairs Bureau of the City of Yokohama's Basic Resident Registers. The participants were recruited and the research took place in Yokohama City, Japan.

3) In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

Author’s Response:

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter. In our Data Availability statement, we described this as follows:

Data Availability:

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

S1 Fig. Appendix. The SET English version.

S2 Fig. Appendix. The SET Japanese version.

S3 Anonymized minimal data set

4) Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

At this time, please address the following queries:

4a) Please clarify the sources of funding (financial or material support) for your study. List the grants or organizations that supported your study, including funding received from your institution.

4b) State what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role in your study, please state: “The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”

4c) If any authors received a salary from any of your funders, please state which authors and which funders.

4d) If you did not receive any funding for this study, please state: “The authors received no specific funding for this work.” Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Author’s Response:

4a) The sources of funding for our study were Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research (KAKENHI) of the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (PI: Dr. Etsuko TADAKA).

4b) The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

4c) No authors received a salary or fees from any of the funders.

Comments of Reviewer #1

1) Why is it important to develop a measurement specifically for the third agers? How's this group's social contact similar to and different from people in other age groups? Why is it important to develop a measurement specifically for the third agers?

Author’s Response:

There are two reasons that demonstrate the importance of developing a measure specifically for third agers. First, health promotion in third agers will lead to prevention of the need for health and nursing care in later years, thus extending the healthy life expectancy of these individuals. Second, by promoting the health of third agers, the community can be revitalized to create a healthy community environment for older people.

How's this group's social contact similar to and different from people in other age groups?

One similarity is the importance of social contact, which is the interaction that takes place between an individual and members of society and is a component of society. One difference is the process by which social contacts are formed. Third agers are thought to form relationships with a relatively limited extent of people, and in limited locations outside of the workplace, in their retired lives. People of other ages. such as “second agers”, are thought to form relationships with a relatively wide range of people and in more locations, such as at school and work, during their active lives.

We have added the following to the introduction section.

Page7, Lines 92, Introduction

There are two reasons that demonstrate the importance of developing a measure specifically for third agers. First, health promotion in third agers will lead to prevention of the need for health and nursing care in later years, thus extending the healthy life expectancy of these individuals. Second, by promoting the health of third agers, the community can be revitalized to create a healthy community environment for older people.

2) Among the 2,600 potential participants, 1,139 responded. Is there any risk of self-selection bias? For example, 82.3% of the study sample lived with a spouse, children, or others? Is this rate expected for the older adult population in Yokohama city?

Author’s Response:

As you pointed out, there is certainly the possible risk of self-selection bias; however, we believe that a certain level of representativeness is ensured in our population. In the latest survey among older people conducted by Yokohama City (where the present research was conducted), 81.1% of respondents lived with a spouse, children, or others. This is consistent with the results of this survey, and this rate is expected for the older adult population in Yokohama City. Additionally, in this study, the target population was randomly sampled and the collection rate was sufficient in comparison with previous studies. We therefore believe that the survey is representative.

3) In the conclusion section of the abstract, the authors mentioned, "this scale may help third agers in gaining and expanding opportunities for social contact." How can a scale help third agers in gaining contact?

Author’s Response:

The present scale can help third agers to build their social contacts in the following ways.

First, the scale will allow third agers to understand and reflect on their social contacts, which can help them to expand their social activities and relationships for the rest of their lives. Second, this scale can provide useful information for community organizations and public health policy makers for the development of systems and communities that contribute to people's social contacts. This means not only improving the motivation of third agers themselves but also promoting the above two aspects of community building; as a result, the people involved can improve their contacts within society.

We have added the following to the discussion section.

Page22, Lines 325, Discussion

In other words, this scale can be useful in motivating individuals and building the community, and as a result, the people involved can improve their social contacts within society. In the future, effective programs and systems can disseminate the SET to help promote social contact opportunities for third agers and extend the third age phase, helping older adults to maintain physical functioning and improve their quality of life.

4) The authors proposed two possible elements in social relationships, i.e., social space mobility and social support network. Although some definitions of the two concepts were provided in lines 58-60, I still found myself not so clear about these two aspects' meaning. Is social space mobility related to living space and mobility or purely how diverse one's social network is? Does social support network sound like the frequency of contact with people in the network? The social support network is a widely used term in social relationship research. It is a nuanced concept that could include network size, frequency of contact, and relationships with others in the network. The definitions here seem not clear enough.

Author’s Response:

We have reconsidered the two elements in social relationships based on your valuable comments. As a result, social space mobility has been modified to social space mobility and social support network to social support relationships. We redefined the first element, social space mobility, as related to both living space and mobility. We also included both physical space (outdoors) as well as cyberspace or virtual space (online) within the scope of social space mobility. Next, social support network was defined as not only the frequency of contact with other people but also the ability to build and maintain new relationships (including with friends, neighbors, public and private support agencies, and primary care physician) while respecting the existing relationships during individuals’ retired lives; we have modified the second element to social support relationship.

We have added the following to the introduction section.

Page5, Lines 58, Introduction

There are two elements in social relationships that contribute to improved health and longevity among third agers, namely, “social space mobility” and “social support relationships”. “Social space mobility” is defined as extent of individuals’ social contacts, as related to both living space and mobility. “Social support relationships” is defined as interactions with individuals’ social contacts as well as the ability to build and maintain new social relationships (including with friends, neighbors, public and private support agencies, and primary care physicians) while preserving existing relationships in one’s retired life. Enhanced social participation among older people means maintaining wide social space mobility and enhanced social support relationships.

5) The proposed two possible elements in social relationships are intriguing. However, what is the theoretical rationale that supports this taxonomy? How are these two aspects related to self-efficacy? Any reference to support the legitimacy of this taxonomy?

Author’s Response:

Regarding the theoretical rationale supporting this taxonomy, the reason we focused on these two elements in this study is because it has recently been reported that the mortality rate among elderly people with overlapping conditions of both "social isolation" (non-interaction) and "confinement" (not going outside of the home) is significantly higher than that of their counterparts with only one of these conditions (Sakurai et al., 2019). To effectively prevent both social isolation and confinement among older people in a country where the shortage of human resources is expected to become more serious with a decline in the population, it is necessary to take measures that focus on both risk factors at the same time.

Regarding how are these two aspects are related to self-efficacy, we focused on self-efficacy for two reasons. First, we used self-efficacy because it has been theoretically shown that self-efficacy promotes more desirable behaviors. Second, the measures of social participation for the elderly that have been developed to date have been limited to quantitative measures, such as measuring the types of community activities in which individuals participate, the frequency of outings, and the number of people in their social support network.

Refernce)

Sakurai R, Yasunaga M, Nishi M, Fukaya T, Hasebe M, Murayama Y, et al. Co-existence of social isolation and homebound status increase the risk of all-cause mortality. Int Psychogeriatrics. 2019;31: 703–711. doi:10.1017/S1041610218001047.

6) Consider defining the concept "social contact self-efficacy."

Author’s Response:

Social contact self-efficacy in this study is defined as the ability of third agers to act toward achieving desirable levels of social participation, which is particularly relevant in the two major domains, social space mobility and social support relationship.

We have added the following to the introduction section.

Page6, Lines 85, Introduction

Social contact self-efficacy in this study is defined as the ability of third agers to act toward achieving desirable levels of social participation. Improving social contact self-efficacy in third agers can also support improved physical functioning and mental health among older adults, leading to a more rewarding life and healthier longevity.

7) Line 96, the author mentioned "practically beneficial" as a criterion for selecting scale items. Could you please elaborate what are the practical benefits that were considered?

Author’s Response:

We considered items to be "practically beneficial" as follows; the items can be variable across interventions; and the items have clarity of logic, meaning, and readability for ease of understanding among third agers.

We have added the following to the methods section.

Page7, Lines 107, Methods

Item selection criteria were based on two aspects: (1) indicators of enhancement and extension of the third age period; (2) practically beneficial items: the items can be variable across interventions and each item must have clarity of logic, meaning, and readability for ease of understanding among third agers.

8) Line 128, what’s recovery rate?

Author’s Response:

The recovery rate has been corrected to the response rate. We were able to collect 1,139 of 2,600 questionnaires, so the response rate was calculated to be 43.8%.

We have added the following to the methods section.

Page11, Lines 166, Methods

Additionally, the response rate in this study was adequate compared with previous studies among similar older adult populations.

9) The face validity of the scale items shown in table 3 could be somewhat questionable. For example, Item 9, "I can easily consult my doctor or specialist about health concerns," and item 8, "I can notice even slight changes in my health." How do these two items related to social contact self-efficacy?

Author’s Response:

The face validity of the scale items, i.e., how items 8 and 9 relate to social contact self-efficacy, are discussed below one item at a time.

Item 9: "I can easily consult my doctor or specialist about health concerns" is meant to assess the ability to stay connected with medical care. Even among third agers with high levels of good health, medical needs are expected to increase as they age. These individuals need to be prepared to quickly connect with medical care that is appropriate for them when they need it; through consultations, they can build health-related networks and trusting relationships with health care professionals.

Item 8: "I can notice even slight changes in my health" is meant to assess the ability to pay attention to one's own health so as to maintain relationships with others. Third agers are required to take greater care of themselves because they may gradually lose the means to manage their health when they retire, such as attending regular medical checkups that were provided by their employer. Additionally, with the expected prevalence of infectious diseases and future social climate, it is necessary for older people to be aware of changes in their physical condition to judge whether they can interact with others and to build relationships in which they can care for each other's physical condition.

10) Line 272, the authors argued that a higher score on the social support network dimension indicates higher motivation to expand the social network. I am not sure if items 8 and 9 could reflect that.

Author’s Response:

Item 8 measures the ability to care for one's own health and to take necessary actions so as to maintain relationships with others. A high score on this item indicates that the individual is aware of the state of their own body during the course of daily activities and is able to care for their own physical condition. For example, being able to care for one another’s physical condition and say "How are you?" to each other when interacting with others, as well as being able to recognize when one's own physical condition is poor and to express it in words, will help in building rewarding relationships for both parties in which older people can spend time together in comfort and at ease. Item 9 measures awareness about taking care of one's own health, selecting appropriate people to turn to in case of an emergency, and the ability to express one's own health condition in one's own words. This is also an item that measures awareness regarding connecting with familiar medical professionals and building trusting relationships. A high score on this item indicates that when individuals feel uncomfortable or worried about their physical condition, they do not leave problems unattended; these individuals have less resistance to visiting a hospital, and they are more likely to take actions that lead to undergoing a medical examination and building connections with medical professionals.

11) Line 111, the survey was conducted “with” 2,600 community-dwelling older adults instead of “on”.

Author’s Response:

As you pointed out, we have made the following revision:

Page 8, Lines 125, Methods, Phase 2: Validating the instrument, Participants and Settings

“The survey was conducted with 2,600 community-dwelling elderly aged 65 years and older living in Yokohama City.”

12) Line 125, here the deficiencies mean missingness?

Author’s Response:

As you pointed out, here deficiencies refers to missing items. We made the following revision:

Page 10, Lines 162, Methods, Phase 2: Validating the instrument, Participants and Settings

“The analysis included 790 people with no missing items on the SET or criterion-related validity index items.”

13) “The basic attributes of the 188 individuals who were excluded owing to missing data were mean age 76.9 years and 59% women." This sentence appears awkward. Please rephrase it.

Author’s Response:

As you pointed out, we have made the following revision:

Page 11, Lines 163, Methods, Phase 2: Validating the instrument, Participants and Settings

“The basic demographics of the 188 respondents who were excluded owing to missing response data are as follows: the average age was 76.9 years and 59% were women. We believe that the exclusion of the missing data did not cause significant bias in the data.”

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

10 Jun 2021

Development of a social contact self-efficacy scale for ‘third agers’ in Japan

PONE-D-21-01370R1

Dear Dr. Tadaka,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Masaki Mogi

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

The authors well responded to the Reviewer's comments. No further comment.

Reviewers' comments:

14 Jun 2021

PONE-D-21-01370R1

Development of a social contact self-efficacy scale for ‘third agers’ in Japan

Dear Dr. Tadaka:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Masaki Mogi

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE