Development of the Japanese Version of the Engagement in Meaningful Activities Survey

Abstract

Objectives: To create a Japanese version of the Engagement in Meaningful Activities Survey (EMAS) and assess internal consistency, test–retest reliability, convergent and structural validity. Method: We conducted a cultural translation and validation study of the Japanese version of the EMAS (EMAS-J) in a sample of 96 community-dwelling older adults in the Tohoku Region of Japan. Results: Internal consistency of the EMAS-J (α = .91) was very good. Low to moderate correlations were found with indicators of health-related quality of life, depression, and life purpose and meaning. Exploratory factor analysis indicated a two-factor structure within the EMAS-J; cultural differences in item-factor composition compared with previously reported EMAS factor structures are discussed. Implications: The EMAS-J is a reliable and valid assessment of engagement in meaningful activities for older adults in Japan. The assessment can be used to evaluate the effects of occupation-based interventions upon health and well-being.

Cross-cultural adaptation and psychometric properties of the engagement in meaningful activities survey

“…A second component related to social environment as a motivating factor to perform and engage in activities (SC)—comprised of items 6 and 7. The two-factor structure in the EMAS has been confirmed in the original EMAS (Eakman et al, 2010a) and the translated Korean, Spanish, Polish and Japanese versions (Bożek and Tokarz, 2017; Kawakatsu et al, 2022; Nam et al, 2018; Prat et al, 2019). However, the CFA showed a poor fit of the model of Eakman et al (2010a) (SEC and PCC) in our sample of adults and demonstrated an improved model fit of the Flemish model.…”

“…The EMAS-VL also moderately correlated with the GHQ-12 which assesses mental health. Health-related measures have already been used to measure construct validity in translated EMAS versions such as the 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36; Kawakatsu et al, 2022; Cheraghifard et al, 2022), Psychological Meaningfulness Scale (Bożek and Tokarz, 2017), or Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (Cheraghifard et al, 2022). They all showed a moderate positive correlation with the EMAS.…”

“…The EMAS has been translated into a multitude of languages; Spanish (Fernández-Solano et al, 2022; Prat et al, 2019), Japanese (Kawakatsu et al, 2022), Polish (Bożek and Tokarz, 2017), French (Lacroix et al, 2018), Persian (Cheraghifard et al, 2022), Norwegian (Nesse et al, 2021), Korean (Nam et al, 2018) and Lithuanian (Loh et al, 2021). Overall, they found a good internal consistency, some slightly better than the original version (Bożek and Tokarz, 2017; Kawakatsu et al, 2022; Prat et al, 2019). A good construct validity was reported in the Polish and Korean versions.…”

“…A good construct validity was reported in the Polish and Korean versions. The factorial validity of the scale has also been evaluated in Japanese, Korean, Polish and Spanish versions, with the EMAS consistently demonstrating a two-factor structure (Bożek and Tokarz, 2017; Kawakatsu et al, 2022; Nam et al, 2018; Prat et al, 2019). The confirmatory factor analysis of Prat et al (2019) and Nam et al (2018) confirmed the same components consisting of the same items as stated in the study of the original EMAS (Eakman et al, 2010a).…”

“…The confirmatory factor analysis of Prat et al (2019) and Nam et al (2018) confirmed the same components consisting of the same items as stated in the study of the original EMAS (Eakman et al, 2010a). Kawakatsu et al (2022) conducted an exploratory factor analysis which resulted in different items in the two-factor structure. They named the first factor as ‘positive emotion component’ (items 1,4,8,9,10,11,12) and the second factor as the ‘social competence component’ (items 2,3,5,6,7).…”