Turkish Adaptation of the Aging Anxiety Scale for Middle-Age Women: Validity and Reliability Study

Abstract

Purpose: This study aimed to adapt the Aging Anxiety Scale for Middle-Aged Women to the Turkish culture and to evaluate its validity and reliability. Methods: This cross-sectional descriptive study was conducted with 248 women. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were performed for language validity, content validity and psychometric measurements of the study. For reliability, the test-retest method was performed. Results: In exploratory factor analysis, it was determined that the total variance was described as 59.15%. The confirmatory factor analysis, the fit indices of the scale were found acceptable. Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of the scale was 0.89. Conclusions: The study determined that the Turkish version of the Aging Anxiety Scale for Middle-Aged Women is a valid and reliable measuring instrument.

Keywords

• Aging
• anxiety
• middle-aged
• women
• reliability
• validity

References

1. 1. United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. World Population Ageing 2019: Highlights (ST/ESA/SER.A/430). [cited 01 June 2020]. Available From: https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/publications/pdf/ageing/WorldPopulationAgeing2019-Highlights.pdf
2. 2. World Health Organization. World Health Statistics Overview 2019. [cited 01 June 2020]. Available from: https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/311696/WHO-DAD-2019.1 eng.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y .
3. 3. Lasher KP, Faulkender PJ. Measurement of aging anxiety: development of the anxiety about aging scale. Int J Aging Hum Dev. 1993;37(4):247–259.
4. 4. Lynch SM. Measurement and prediction of aging anxiety. Research on Aging. 2000; 22(5): 533.
5. 5. Ramirez LF, Palacios-Espinosa X, Dyar C, Lytle A, Levy SR. The relationships among aging stereotypes, aging anxiety, social support, religiosity, and expected health among Colombians. Journal of Adult Development. 2019; 26(1): 57-70.
6. 6. Donizetti AR. Ageism in an aging society: The role of knowledge, anxiety about aging, and stereotypes in young people and adults. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 2019; 16: 1329.
7. 7. Barnett MD, Adams CM. Ageism and aging anxiety among young adults: relationships with contact, knowledge, fear of death, and optimism. Educational Gerontology. 2018; 44(11): 693-700.
8. 8. Saxena R, Shukla A. Gender and age-related differences in anxiety about aging. International Journal of Indian Psychology. 2016; 3(4). DOI: 10.25215/0304.097

9. 9. Brunton RJ, Scott G. Do we fear ageing? A multidimensional approach to ageing anxiety. Educational Gerontology. 2015; 41(11): 786-799.
10. 10. Taşdemir N. Young group identification and motives as predictors of ageism, aging anxiety, and life satisfaction. The Journal of Genetic Psychology. 2020; 181(5): 375-390.
11. 11. Sönvurmaz S, Mandıracıoğlu A. Health sciences students’ ageing anxiety and attitudes towards older people. Turkish Journal of Geriatrics. 2017; 20(1): 54-60.
12. 12. Bellard AM, Cornelissen PL, Mian E. et al. The ageing body: contributing attitudinal factors towards perceptual body size estimates in younger and middle-aged women. Arch Womens Ment Health. 2021; 24: 93–105.
13. 13. Kim SH, Lee SJ, Kim HJ, Lee JH, Jeong HS, Suh IS. Aging-related changes in the mid-face skin elasticity in East Asian women. Archives of Craniofacial Surgery. 2019; 20(3): 158–163.
14. 14. Dunaev JL, Schulz JL, Markey CN. Cosmetic surgery attitudes among midlife women: Appearance esteem, weight esteem, and fear of negative appearance evaluation. Journal of Health Psychology. 2018; 23(1): 59–66.
15. 15. Carrard I, Argyrides M, Ioannou X, Kvalem IL, Waldherr K, Harcourt D, McArdle S. Associations between body dissatisfaction, importance of appearance, and aging anxiety with depression, and appearance-related behaviors in women in mid-life. J Women Aging 2019. https://doi.org/10.1080/08952841.2019.1681882
16. 16. Park JH. The effects of social support, self-efficacy on aging anxiety of the middle-aged women. Journal of Korea Academia. 2018; 19(10): 569-577.
17. 17. Young Ok J, Hyo-Sook O. The effects of social support, self-efficacy and perceived health status on aging anxiety of the middle-aged women. Journal of Korean Public of Health Nursing. 2016; 30(1): 30-41.
18. 18. Cho JH. The influence of self-efficacy, self-esteem, aging anxiety on successful aging in middle-aged women. Medico Legal Update. 2020; 20(1): 2265-2270.
19. 19. Alpar R. Applied Statistics and Validity-Reliability With Examples From Sports Health and Education Sciences. Ankara: Detay Publishing, 2018. (in Turkish).
20. 20. Myers ND, Ahn S, Jin Y. Sample size and power estimates for a confirmatory factor analytic model in exercise and sport: A Monte Carlo approach. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport. 2011; 82(3): 412–423.
21. 21. Lee HJ, You MA. Development of an aging anxiety scale for middle-aged women. J Korean Acad Nurs. 2019; 49(1): 14-25.
22. 22. World Health Organization. Process of Translation and Adaptation of Instruments. [cited 31 May 2020] . Available From: https://www.who.int/substance_abuse/research_tools/translation/en/
23. 23. Davis LL. Instrument review: Getting the most from a panel of experts. Applied Nursing Research. 1992; 5: 194–197.
24. 24. Esin MN. Reliability and validity of data collection methods and tools & data collection tools. In Research Process, Application and Critics in Nursing (Erdoğan, S., Nahcivan, N. & Esin, M.N.,eds). Ankara: Nobel Tıp Bookstore, 2018 (in Turkish).
25. 25. Shi J, Mo X, Sun Z. Content validity index in scale development. Journal of Central South University Medical Sciences. 2012; 37(2): 152-155.
26. 26. Polit DF, Beck CT, Owen SV. Is the CVI an acceptable indicator of content validity? appraisal and recommendations. Research in Nursing & Health. 2007; 30: 459–467.
27. 27. Lloret S, Ferreres A, Hernandez A, Tomas I. The exploratory factor analysis of items: Guided analysis based on empirical data and software. Anales de Psicologia. 2017; 33: 417-432.
28. 28. Seçer İ. Practical data analysis and reporting with SPSS and LISREL. Ankara: Anı Publication, 2015. (in Turkish)
29. 29. Kaiser HF. An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika. 1974; 39: 31-36.
30. 30. Costello AB, Osborne J. Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation. 2005; 10: 1–9.
31. 31. Karagöz Y. SPSS and AMOS23 applied applications analysis. Ankara: Nobel Publication, 2016. (in Turkish).
32. 32. Schermelleh-Engel K, Moosbrugger H, Müller H. Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research Online. 2003; 8(2): 23-74.
33. 33. Kline RB. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. 4th ed. New York: Guilford Press, 2016.
34. 34. Brown, T. Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Applied Research. United States: Guilford Press, 2015.
35. 35. Hu LT, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Modeling. 1999; 6(1): 1-55
36. 36. Hinton PR, McMurray I, Brownlow C. SPSS Explained Second Edition. London: Rowledge, 2014.
37. 37. Streiner DL, Norman GR, Cairney, J. Health measurement scales: A practical guide to their development and use. 5th edition. USA: Oxford University Press, 2015.