Determining the psychometric properties of a novel questionnaire to measure "preparedness for the future" (Prep FQ)

Daren K Heyland, J Paige Pope, Xuran Jiang, Andrew G Day, Daren K Heyland, J Paige Pope, Xuran Jiang, Andrew G Day

Abstract

Background: People are living longer than ever before. However, with living longer comes increased problems that negatively impact on quality of life and the quality of death. Tools are needed to help individuals assess whether they are practicing the best attitudes and behaviors that are associated with a future long life, high quality of life, high quality of death and a satisfying post-death legacy. The purpose of paper is to describe the process we used to develop a novel questionnaire ("Preparedness for the Future Questionnaire™ or Prep FQ") and to define its psychometric properties.

Methods: Using a multi-step development procedure, items were generated, for the new questionnaire after which the psychometric properties were tested with a heterogeneous sample of 502 Canadians. Using an online polling panel, respondents were asked to complete demographic questions as well as the Prep-FQ, Global Rating of Life Satisfaction, the Keyes Psychological Well-Being scale and the Short-Form 12.

Results: The final version of the questionnaire contains 34 items in 8 distinct domains ("Medico-legal", "Social", "Psychological Well-being", "Planning", "Enrichment", "Positive Health Behaviors", "Negative Health Behaviors", and "Late-life Planning"). We observed minimum missing data and good usage of all response options. The average overall Prep FQ score is 51.2 (SD = 13.3). The Cronbach alphas assessing internal reliability for the Prep FQ domains ranged from 0.33 to 0.88. The intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) used to assess the test-retest reliability had an overall score of 0.87. For the purposes of establishing construct validity, all the pre-specified relationships between Prep FQ and the other questionnaires were met.

Conclusion: Analyses of this novel measure offered support for its face validity, construct validity, test-retest reliability, and internal consistency. With the development of this useful and valid scale, future research can utilize this measure to engage people in the process of comprehensively assessing and improving their state of preparedness for the future, tracking their progress along the way. Ultimately, this program of research aims to improve the quality and quantity of peoples live by helping them 'think ahead' and 'plan ahead' on the aspects of their daily life that matter to their future.

Keywords: Aging; Health status; Psychological health; Survey.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

References

    1. World Health Organization. Aging and Health. WHO Fact sheets. February 5, 2018. . Accessed 13 Oct 2020.
    1. Zheng Y, Cheung KSL, Yip PSF. Are we living longer and healthier? J Aging Health. 2020 doi: 10.1177/0898264320950067.
    1. Inouye SK, Studenski S, Tinetti ME, Kuchel GA. Geriatric syndromes: clinical, research, and policy implications of a core geriatric concept. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2007;55:780–791. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2007.01156.x.
    1. Dennison, S. 64% of Americans aren’t prepared for retirement—and 48% don’t care. GoBankingRates, 23 September 2019. . Accessed 13 October 2020.
    1. Heyland DK, Groll D, Rocker G, Dodek P, Gafni A, Tranmer J, et al. End-of-life care in acute care hospitals in Canada: a quality finish? J Palliat Care. 2005;21:142–150. doi: 10.1177/082585970502100306.
    1. Tasdemir-Ozdes A, Strickland-Hughes CM, Bluck S, Ebner NC. Future perspective and healthy lifestyle choices in adulthood. Psychol Aging. 2016;31:618–630. doi: 10.1037/pag0000089.
    1. Li Y, Pan A, Wang DD, Liu X, Dhana K, Franco OH, et al. Impact of healthy lifestyle factors on life expectancies in the US population. Circulation. 2018;138:345–355. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.117.032047.
    1. Nyberg ST, Singh-Manoux A, Pentti J, Madsen IEH, Sabia S, Alfredsson L, et al. Association of healthy lifestyle with years lived without major chronic diseases. JAMA Intern Med. 2020;180:760–768. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.0618.
    1. Bolnick HJ, Bui AL, Bulchis A, Chen C, Chapin A, Lomsadze L, et al. Health-care spending attributable to modifiable risk factors in the USA: an economic attribution analysis. Lancet Public Health. 2020;5:e525–e535. doi: 10.1016/S2468-2667(20)30203-6.
    1. MedlinePlus. Is longevity determined by genetics? 18 September 2020. . Accessed 13 October 2020.
    1. McMahan RD, Tellez I, Sudore RL. Deconstructing the complexities of advance care planning outcomes: What do we know and where do we go? A scoping review. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2021;69(1):234–244. doi: 10.1111/jgs.16801.
    1. Streiner DL, Norman GR. Health Measurement Scales: A Practical Guide to their Development and Use, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press; 1996.
    1. McDonald RP. The theoretical foundations of principal factor analysis, canonical factor analysis, and alpha factor analysis. Br J Math Stat Psychol. 1970;23:1–21. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8317.1970.tb00432.x.
    1. Diener E, Chan MY. Happy people live longer: subjective well-being contributes to health and longevity. Appl Psychol Health Well Being. 2011;3:1–43. doi: 10.1111/j.1758-0854.2010.01045.x.
    1. Howell RT, Howell CJ. The relation of economic status to subjective well-being in developing countries: a meta-analysis. Psychol Bull. 2008;134:536–560. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.134.4.536.
    1. Lyubomirsky S, King L, Diener E. The benefits of frequent positive affect: does happiness lead to success? Psychol Bull. 2005;131:803–855. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.131.6.803.
    1. Cheung F, Lucas RE. Assessing the validity of single-item life satisfaction measures: results from three large samples. Qual Life Res. 2014;23:2809–2818. doi: 10.1007/s11136-014-0726-4.
    1. Lucas RE, Donnellan MB. Estimating the reliability of single-item life satisfaction measures: results from four national panel studies. Soc Indic Res. 2012;105:323–331. doi: 10.1007/s11205-011-9783-z.
    1. Ryff CD. Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of psychological well-being. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1989;57:1069–1081. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.57.6.1069.
    1. Ottenbacher ME, Kuo YF, Ostir GV. Test-retest reliability of a psychological well-being scale in hospitalized older adults. Aging Clin Exp Res. 2007;19:424–429. doi: 10.1007/BF03324725.
    1. Akin A. The scales of psychological well-being: a study of validity and reliability. Educ Pract Theory. 2008;8:741–750.
    1. Weiss LA, Westerhof GJ, Bohlmeijer ET. Can we increase psychological well-being? The effects of interventions on psychological well-being: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. PLoS ONE. 2016;11:e0158092. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0158092.
    1. Ware J, Jr, Kosinski M, Keller SD. A 12-item short-form health survey: construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity. Med Care. 1996;34(3):220–233. doi: 10.1097/00005650-199603000-00003.
    1. Fleiss JL. The design and analysis of clinical experiments. New York: Wiley; 1986.
    1. Fabrigar LR, Wegener DT, MacCallum RC, Strahan EJ. Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychol Methods. 1999;4:272–299. doi: 10.1037/1082-989X.4.3.272.
    1. IBM Knowledge Center. KMO and Bartlett's test. . Accessed 15 Feb 2021.
    1. McGinty EE, Presskreischer R, Han H, Barry CL. Psychological distress and loneliness reported by US adults in 2018 and April 2020. JAMA. 2020;324:93–94. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.9740.
    1. Violan C, Foguet-Boreu Q, Flores-Mateo G, Salisbury C, Blom J, Freitag M, et al. Prevalence, determinants and patterns of multimorbidity in primary care: a systematic review of observational studies. PLoS ONE. 2014;9:e102149. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0102149.

Source: PubMed

Sponsors and Collaborators

Medical Conditions

Drug Interventions

3
Subscribe