Adaptation and Validation of Active Aging Index Among Older Vietnamese Adults

Abstract

Objective: The objective of this study was to adapt and validate the Vietnamese version of Active Aging Index (AAI). Method: We conducted an expert panel, focus groups, test–retest and examination of internal consistency, and construct and concurrent validity among 804 older Vietnamese adults. Results: Scale content validity index (CVI) was 0.98. Test–retest coefficients ranged from 0.70 to 1.00. The Cronbach’s alphas of well-being, voluntary, affordability, and politics were 0.94, 0.70, 0.65, and 0.16, respectively. Voluntary and well-being had good construct validity. Regarding politics, only one of four items had good test–retest reliability (Kappa 0.84), while other three had low variance in both test–retest and field study. In exploratory factor analysis, items assessing affordability loaded on three components. AAI was positively associated with perceived health, life satisfaction, and quality of life; it was negatively associated with falls, loneliness, and frailty. Discussion: In adapting AAI, researchers should consider cultural sensitivity. Key modifications, findings, explanations, and suggestions are presented here.

Determinants of Health Literacy and Its Associations With Health-Related Behaviors, Depression Among the Older People With and Without Suspected COVID-19 Symptoms: A Multi-Institutional Study

“…Therefore, improving health literacy might be a strategic approach to prevent COVID-19 and minimize its consequences, especially in men and the older people. In addition, active engagement of the elderly is encouraged to contain the pandemic (40,41). Governments must provide detailed, timely and accurate information regarding the epidemic, particularly about prevention efforts and self-protective behaviors that minimize new infections (42)(43)(44).…”

Active Aging Index in Vietnam Relative to China, South Korea, Taiwan, and 28 European Union Countries

“…The VAAI was culturally adapted through these processes. Detailed information on the adaption and validation of the VAAI has been published elsewhere (Pham et al, 2019 ), whereas Zaidi et al (2013) published the methodological details of the original AAI. The present study only highlights four major modifications of the VAAI, namely, weighting scheme for four domains, wordings in indicator D3.1, omission of indicator D3.4, and adaptation of indicator D3.5 based on the original AAI.…”

“…We adopted this strategy from the Taiwan study (Hsu et al, 2019) because the four domains are equally important for promoting active and healthy aging. Second, following the results of an expert panel discussion (Pham et al, 2019 ), we modified indicator D3.1, from “Doing physical exercise almost every day or every day” to “Doing physical exercise at least three days a week,” which is suitable to the Vietnamese context and remains consistent with the WHO recommendation (WHO, 2010). Third, the study omitted indicator D3.4 “Relative median income” due to unavailability of data.…”

Construction of healthy aging index from two different datasets

“…The ideal construct of a healthy aging measurement tool also depends on standardized items within each domain. Some of the domains of intrinsic capacity were represented in almost all existing studies; however, all domains of intrinsic capacity were included in only three of them ( 7 , 10 , 21 , 22 ). Such domains as vitality, cognition, and psychology are the most commonly used, i.e., 76% of the reviewed studies reported them.…”