Mehmet Akif ERİŞEN, Seda UYAR, Ramazan KIRAÇ, Nur Feyzal KESEN

The validity and reliability study of the Turkish version of engagement in healthy ageing

Background/aim: A long life to be spent in a healthy, independent and vigorous way is one of humanity’s biggest dreams. This is the engagement of individuals in healthy ageing processes. This study was carried out to conduct the Turkish validity and reliability study of the “Engagement in Healthy Ageing Scale” developed by Menichetti, Bonanomi, and Graffigna [3] to determine the engagement of individuals in healthy ageing and their experiences with healthy ageing. Materials and methods: The quantitative research design was used in the study and descriptive findings were presented. Personal information form and the “Engagement in Healthy Ageing Scale” were used in the study’s data collection. In addition, the “Health Seeking Behaviour Scale”, and the “Self-Efficacy Scale” were used to conduct context validity. The data of the study were analysed with the help of SPSS and the LISREL package program. Results: It was determined that the goodness of fit index values of the Engagement in Healthy Ageing Scale, which was adapted into Turkish, showed good fit and acceptable fit. To test the context validity, the correlational relationship of the Engagement in Healthy Ageing Promotion Scale with the Health Seeking Behaviour and Self-Efficacy scales were examined. As a result of the correlation analysis, it was determined that there is a positive relationship between engagement in healthy ageing and health-seeking behaviour and self-efficacy. Conclusion: As a result of the research, it was determined that the Engagement in Healthy Aging Scale is a valid and reliable measurement tool in Turkish culture (Appendix).

PDF

___

1. Cankurtaran M. Aging, aging mechanisms, antiaging and lifestyle changes. In 7th National Internal Medicine Congress. Antalya, 2005.
2. Özdemirkan T, Şenlik ZB, Şimşek AÇ. Healthy active successful ageing. Turkey Health Literacy Journal 2005; 1(1): 61-67 “(in Turkish)”.doi: 10.54247/SOYD.2020.6
3. Menichetti J, Bonanomi A, Graffigna G. Engagement in Healthy Ageing Promotion Scale: development and validation. Journal of Gerontology and Geriatrics 2018; 66(1): 7-14
4. Kuh D, Karunananthan S, Bergman H, Cooper R. A lifecourse approach to healthy ageing: maintaining physical capability. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 2014; 73(2): 237-248. doi: 10.1017/S0029665113003923
5. Beard JR, Officer A, De Carvalho IA, Sadana R, Pot AM et al. The World report on ageing and health: A policy framework for healthy ageing. Lancet 2016; 387(10033): 2145-2154. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)00516-4
6. Owusu-Addo E, Ofori-Asenso R, Batchelor F, Mahtani K, Brijnath B. Effective implementation approaches for healthy ageing ınterventions for older people: A Rapid Review. Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics 2021; 92: 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.archger.2020.104263
7. Hamer M, Lavoie KL, Bacon SL. Taking up physical activity in later life and healthy ageing: The english longitudinal study of ageing. British Journal of Sports Medicine 2014; 48(3): 239- 243. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2013-092993
8. Tyas SL, Snowdon DA, Desrosiers MF, Riley KP, Markesbery WR. Healthy ageing in the nun study: Definition and neuropathologic correlates. Age and Ageing 2007; 36(6): 650- 655. https://doi.org/10.1093/ageing/afm120
9. Wong RY. A New strategic approach to successful aging and healthy aging. Geriatrics 2018; 3(86): 1-3. https://doi. org/10.3390/geriatrics3040086
10. Cosco TD, Prina AM, Perales J, Stephan BC, Brayne C. Operational definitions of successful aging: A systematic review. International Psychogeriatrics 2014; 26(3): 373. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1041610213002287
11. Rowe JW, Kahn RL. Successful aging. Gerontologist 1997; 37: 433–440. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/37.4.433
12. Swedish National Institute of Public Health (SNIPH). (2007), Healthy Ageing: a Challenge for Europe, Swedish National Institute of Public Health Distribution: Stockholm.
13. Oxley H. Policies for Healthy Ageing: an Overview. OECD Health Working Papers No.42. Head of Publications Service OECD: France, 2009.
14. Sowa A, Tobiasz-Adamczyk B, Topór-Mądry R, Poscia A, La Milia DI. Predictors of healthy ageing: Public health policy targets. BMC Health Services Research 2016; 16(5): 441-453. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-016-1520-5
15. Akman M. Sağlık arama davranışı. Türkiye Aile Hekimliği Dergisi 2015; 19(2): 53-54 “(in Turkish)”. doi: 10.15511/ tahd.15.02053
16. Gözüm S, Aksakay S. Reliability and validity of the Turkish version of the self-efficacy scale. Journal of Atatürk University School of Nursing 1999; 2(1): 21-34 “(in Turkish)”.
17. Clarke P, Nieuwenhuijsen ER. Environments for healthy ageing: A critical review. Maturitas, 2009; 64(1): 14-19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.maturitas.2009.07.011.
18. Burke GL, Arnold AM, Bild DE, Cushman M, Fried LP, Newman A, Nunn C. Robbins J. Factors associated with healthy aging: the cardiovascular Health study. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 2001; 49(3): 254-262. https:// doi.org/10.1046/j.1532-5415.2001.4930254.x
19. Peel NM, McClure RJ, Bartlett HP. Behavioral determinants of healthy aging. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 2005; 28(3): 298-304. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. amepre.2004.12.002
20. Zadworna, M. (2020). Healthy aging and the university of the third age–health behavior and subjective health outcomes in older adults. Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics, 2020; (90): 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.archger.2020.104126
21. Turkish Public Health Institution. Turkey Healthy Ageing Action Plan and Implementation Program 2015-2020. Ankara: Anı Reklam Matbaa, 2015.
22. Yıldız H. Healthy, successful and active aging. In: Bölüktaş R.P. (editors). Basic Gerontology; Istanbul: Istanbul University AUZEF, 2020. pp. 248-267.
23. Peel N, Bartlett H, McClure R. Healthy ageing: how is it defined and measured? Australasian Journal on Ageing 2004; 23(3): 115-119. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741- 6612.2004.00035.x
24. Öztürk ME, Kayıhan D. Healthy ageing. Bilim Armonisi 2018; 1(1): 51-53.
25. Kalache A, Kickbusch I. A global strategy for healthy ageing. World Health 1997; 50(4): 4-5.
26. Hazer O, Özsungur F. Turkish version of successful aging scale. International Journal of Education Technology and Scientific Researches 2017; 2(4): 184-206. https://doi. org/10.1007/s12126-020-09378-7
27. Otrar M. Yaşlılık ve Yaşlanmaya İlişkin Tutum Ölçeği: Geçerlik ve Güvenirlik Çalışması. İstanbul University Journal of Sociology 2016; 36(2): 527-550 “(in Turkish)”. doi: 10.16917/ iusosyoloji.292680
28. Ertan T, Eker E, Şar V. Reliability and validity of the geriatri depression scale in Turkish elderly population. Archives of Neuropsychiatry 1997; 34(2): 62-71.
29. Kaçan Softa HK, Işıl Ö. Getting old in a healthy way and related factors: A study of developing a new model. Cumhuriyet Nursing Journal 2017; 6(2): 61-73.
30. Aydın A, Aydın Sayılan A. A theoretical perspective pn relationship between active ageing and lifelong learning. International Journal of Social and Economic Sciences 2014; 4(2): 76-81.
31. Coşkun R, Altunışık R, Bayraktaroğlu S, Yıldırım E. Research methods in social sciences: SPSS application. Sakarya Publishing, 2017.
32. Kıraç R. Effect of nomophobia on attention deficit. OPUS International Journal of Society Researches 2019; 14(20): 1095- 1114.
33. Sherer M, Maddux JE, Mercandante B, Prentice-Dunn S, Jacobs B, Rogers RW. The self-efficacy scale: Construction and validation. Psychological Reports 1982; 51(2): 663–671. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1982.51.2.663
34. Nazlı K, Oğuz I. Validity and reliability of the patient empowerment scale in Turkish. The Journal of Business Science, 2018; 6(1): 27-42 “(in Turkish)”. https://doi. org/10.22139/jobs.682555
35. Kurtuluş K. Marketing Research. 7th Edition, Istanbul, 2004.
36. Büyüköztürk Ş. Data Analysis Handbook. Ankara: Pegem Publishing, 2007.
37. Işık O. The effect of perceived quality on hospital brand equity: Consumer assessment. PhD, Gazi University, Ankara, 2011.
38. Yaşlıoğlu MM. Factor analysis and validity in social sciences: Application of exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses. Istanbul University Journal of the School of Business 2017; 46: 74-85.
39. Hooper D, Coughlan J, Mullen MR. Structural Equation Modelling: Guidelines for determining model fit. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods 2008; 6(1): 53-60.
40. Munro BH. Statistical Methods for Health care Research (Vol. 1): Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 2005.
41. Rose A, Peters N, Shea JA, Armstrong K. Development and testing of the health care system distrust scale. Journal of General İnternal Medicine 2004; 19(1): 57-63. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1525-1497.2004.21146.x
42. Şimşek ÖF. Introduction to Structural Equality Modelling: (Basic Principles and Applications of LISREL). Ekinoks, 2007.
43. Wang J, Wang X. Structural Equation Modelling: Applications Using Mplus. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2019.
44. Kıraç R. Factors Affecting the health seeking behaviour: A study based on structural equation modeling. PhD, Selçuk University, Konya, 2019.
45. Toygar ŞA, Kırlıoğlu M. Evaluation of the Structural Validity of the Job Satisfaction Scale in Health and Social Work Professionals and with Confirmatory Factor Analysis. Ankara Hacı Bayram Veli University, The Journal of the Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences 2020; 22(1): 120-133.
46. Uzunsakal E, Yıldız D. A comparison of reliability tests in field researchers and an application on agricultural data. Journal of Applied Social Sciences 2018; 2(1): 14-28.
47. Gürbüz S, Şahin F. Sosyal Bilimlerde Araştırma Yöntemleri: Felsefe. Yöntem, Analiz. Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık, 2017.