Validity and reliability of community integration questionnaire in elderly
Le résumé fourni par la source
Background: Community Integration is associated to wellbeing of a person. Various studies done on geriatric population suggest that due to physical, cognitive and psychological factors the participation of this population in community reduces which in turn affects wellbeing and quality of life of the this population. However there are not many scales which can determine integration level in each domain of community. Community Integration Questionnaire gives knowledge of participation both indoors and outdoors however it is not validated on Geriatric population in India. Objectives: The objective of the study was to determine the validity and reliability of Community Integration Questionnaire (CIQ) in geriatric population. Materials and Methods: Expert reviews were taken from 10 experts on the questionnaire and modifications were made, from which Content Validity Ratio was found. CIQ was administered to 30 subjects recruited from community as well as old-age homes to determine internal consistency and test-retest. Results: High content validity ratio from 2nd expert review (1.00) for all 17 items and Chronbach’s alpha in acceptable range (0.799) was obtained. The scale also had excellent test-retest reliability (ICC= 0.9970) in geriatric population. Also the name of the scale was changed to CIQ- GI (Community Integration Questionnaire- Geriatric in India) Conclusion: CIQ- GI is a valid and reliable tool for assessing community integration in elderly.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Validity and reliability of community integration questionnaire in elderly
- Date Crossref
- 01/01/2015
- Éditeur
- ScopeMed
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.