Reliability and validity of the attitudes to ageing questionnaire for Canadian and Norwegian older adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Scand J Caring Sci; 2010; 24; 75–85 Reliability and validity of the attitudes to ageing questionnaire for Canadian and Norwegian older adults The aim of this study was to examine the reliability and validity of the Attitudes to Ageing Questionnaire (AAQ), a new scale designed for cross‐cultural comparisons of older adults. There are currently very few measures intended to measure the attitudes of older adults to their own ageing. The instrument was designed as part of a larger study to develop a measure of quality of life (QOL) of older adults and to assess factors related to QOL; it was hypothesized that attitudes to ageing would be related to QOL. Canadian (n = 202) and Norwegian (n = 490) data were used. In both study samples, a series of correlation analyses indicated that item scores correlated most strongly with their parent subscales (r=0.42–0.79; p < 0.01). Acceptable internal consistency was shown (Cronbach’s alpha of 0.70 or greater for all subscales). In a confirmatory factor analyses (CFA), all 24 items in the AAQ were retained (p < 0.001); the observed lack of goodness of fit and residual covariance patterns provided empirical support, in part, for the construct validity of the AAQ. Patterns of correlations of the AAQ subscales with WHOQOL‐OLD facets, WHOQOL‐BREF domains, a global QoL item and GDS scores provided evidence of convergent and divergent validity. Nonsignificant correlations were found between psychological growth and two facets of the WHOQOL‐OLD in the Canadian sample. Subscale scores also significantly discriminated between healthy and unhealthy groups. Further validation of the scale among older people, across countries, is recommended.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".