Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-wq2xx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-16T04:38:17.277Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The development of culturally-sensitive measures for research on ageing

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 March 2011

BERIT INGERSOLL-DAYTON
BERIT INGERSOLL-DAYTON*
Affiliation:
School of Social Work, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, USA.
*
Address for correspondence: Berit Ingersoll-Dayton, School of Social Work, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA. E-mail: bid@umich.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Attempts to import existing measures developed in other countries when constructing research instruments for use with older people can result in several problems including inappropriate wording, unsuitable response sets, and insufficient attention to cultural nuances. This paper addresses such problems by discussing a mixed-methods approach (i.e. both qualitative and quantitative) to measurement development that incorporates input from the older adults for whom the measure is intended. To test this approach, a step-by-step process to the development of a culturally-grounded measure for older Thai people is described. Using focus groups and in-depth interviews, the process begins with an identification of the culturally-meaningful domains of the construct under study. Next, input is gathered from other studies; a preliminary quantitative measure is developed; and the measure is reviewed by a panel of experts. Based on further pre-testing and cognitive interviews with older people, the measure is again modified. Subsequently, the measure is incorporated into a large-scale survey and tested for its psychometric qualities. In addition to providing a template for culturally-sensitive measurement development in gerontology, this paper also highlights issues (e.g. time constraints and trade-offs between cultural specificity as against cultural comparability) that researchers should consider when attempting to develop measures. Suggestions for how to address such issues are provided.

Keywords

Asiameasurement developmentcomparative researchculturemixed methods
Type
Articles
Information
Ageing & Society , Volume 31 , Issue 3: Methodologies for Ageing Populations , April 2011 , pp. 355 - 370
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Chaiyawat, W. and Brown, J. 2000. Psychometric properties of the Thai versions of state-trait anxiety inventory for children and child medical fear scale. Research in Nursing and Health, 23, 5, 406–14.3.0.CO;2-I>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chayovan, N. and Knodel, J. 1997. A Report on the Survey of the Welfare of the Elderly in Thailand. Institute of Population Studies, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand.Google Scholar
Christopher, J. C. 1999. Situating psychological well-being: exploring the cultural roots of its theory and research. Journal of Counseling and Development, 77, 2, 141–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Genest, M. and Turk, D. C. 1981. Think-aloud approaches to cognitive assessment. In Merluzzi, T. V., Glass, C. R. and Genest, M. (eds), Cognitive Assessment. Guilford Press, New York, 233–69.Google Scholar
Ho, D. Y. 1998. Indigenous psychologies: Asian perspectives. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 29, 1, 88–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ingersoll, J. 1985. Are they better off? Social well-being as a framework for judging development results. Paper presented at the Society for Economic Anthropology, Warrenton, Virginia.Google Scholar
Ingersoll-Dayton, B. and Saengtienchai, C. 1999. Respect for the elderly in Asia: stability and change. International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 48, 2, 113–30.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ingersoll-Dayton, B., Saengtienchai, C., Kespichayawattana, J. and Aungsuroch, Y. 2001. Psychological well-being Asian style: the perspective of Thai elders. Journal of Cross-cultural Gerontology, 16, 3, 283–302.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ingersoll-Dayton, B., Saengtienchai, C., Kespichayawattana, J. and Aungsuroch, Y. 2004. Measuring psychological well-being: insights from Thai elders. The Gerontologist, 44, 5, 596–604.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kee, L. H. 2007. Indigenising Social Work Practice in Sarawak. Strategic Information and Research Development Centre, Selangor, Malaysia.Google Scholar
Knodel, J. 1995. Focus groups as a qualitative method for cross-cultural research in social gerontology. Journal of Cross-cultural Gerontology, 10, 1, 7–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krause, N. 2002. A comprehensive strategy for developing closed-ended survey items for use in studies of older adults. Journal of Gerontology: Social Sciences, 57B, 5, S263–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lau, A., McKenna, K., Chan, C. and Cummins, R. 2003. Defining quality of life for Chinese elderly stroke survivors. Disability and Rehabilitation, 25, 13, 699–711.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mahoney, D., Cloutterbuck, J., Neary, S. and Zhan, L. 2005. African American, Chinese, and Latino family caregivers' impressions of the onset and diagnosis of dementia: cross-cultural similarities and differences. The Gerontologist, 45, 6, 783–92.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Miller, K. E., Omidian, P., Quaraishy, A. S., Quraishy, N., Nasiry, M. N., Nasiry, S., Karyar, N. and Yaqubi, A. A. 2006. The Afghan symptom checklist: a culturally grounded approach to mental health assessment in a conflict zone. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 76, 4, 423–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgan, D. L. 1997. Focus Groups as Qualitative Research. Sage, Thousand Oaks, California.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgan, D. L. 1998. Practical strategies for combining qualitative and quantitative methods: applications to health research. Qualitative Health Research, 8, 3, 362–76.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ryff, C. D. 1989 a. Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 6, 1069–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ryff, C. D. 1989 b. In the eye of the beholder: views of psychological well-being among middle-aged and older adults. Psychology and Aging, 4, 2, 195–210.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ryff, C. D. and Keyes, C. L. 1995. The structure of psychological well-being revisited. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 4, 719–27.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schwartz, N. 1999. Self-reports: how the questions shape the answers. American Psychologist, 54, 2, 93–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skevington, S. M., Bradshaw, J. and Saxena, S. 1999. Selecting national items for the AHOQOL: conceptual and psychometric considerations. Social Science and Medicine, 48, 4, 473–87.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tashakkori, A. and Teddlie, C. 1998. Mixed Methodology: Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Sage, Thousand Oaks, California.Google Scholar
Tran, T. V. 2009. Developing Cross-cultural Measurement. Oxford University Press, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
WHOQOL Group 1994. The development of the World Health Organization quality of life instrument (the WHOQOL). In Orley, J. and Kuyken, W. (eds), Quality of Life Assessment: International Perspectives. Springer-Verlag, New York, 41–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
WHOQOL Group 1995. The World Health Organization quality of life assessment (WHOQOL): position paper from the World Health Organization. Social Science and Medicine, 41, 10, 1403–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
WHOQOL Group 1998. The World Health Organization quality of life assessment (WHOQOL) development and general psychometric properties. Social Science and Medicine, 46, 12, 1569–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar