YAŞAM ALANI DEĞERLENDIRME ÖLÇEĞİ’NİN TÜRKÇE VERSİYONUNUN GEÇERLİK VE GÜVENİRLİK ÇALIŞMASI

Öz

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı, yaşlı yetişkinlerde Yaşam Alanı Değerlendirme (LSA) Türkçe versiyonunun güvenilirliğini ve geçerliliğini belirlemekti. Yöntem: Çalışmaya ortalama yaşı 72.81±7.63 olan yüz elli iki yaşlı birey alındı. İleri-geri çeviri işlemini takiben, LSA skorlarının eşzamanlı geçerliliğini test etmek için Yaşlılar İçin Fiziksel Aktivite Ölçeği (PASE) ve 36 Maddeli Kısa Form Sağlık Anketi (SF-36) dâhil olmak üzere bir dizi hareketlilik ve genel sağlıkla ilgili değişkenler ile karşılaştırıldı. Sonuçlar: LSA'daki maddelerin hiçbiri değiştirilmedi. İlk değerlendirme için Cronbach α katsayısı 0,714 idi. Test-tekrar test güvenilirliği için sınıf içi korelasyon katsayısı 0,991 ve % 95 güven aralığı 0,986-0,994 idi. En yüksek tutarlılığın ekipman puanlarında elde edildiği gözlendi. LSA'nın tüm alt puanlarının PASE puanları ve SF-36 alt puanları ile anlamlı bir ilişkisi olduğu bulundu. LSA ve PASE’in toplam puanları arasında çok güçlü bir pozitif korelasyon bulundu (r = 0.896). Benzer şekilde, SF-36'nın alt fiziksel fonksiyon ile LSA kompozit puanı arasında çok güçlü bir korelasyon gözlendi (r = 0.841). Tartışma: Çalışmanın sonuçları, LSA'nın Türkçe versiyonunun güçlü ölçüm özelliklerine sahip olduğunu ve LSA'nın yaşlı bireylerin genel sağlık ve fiziksel aktivite düzeyleri ile ilgili yaşam alanlarını değerlendirmek için hassas bir araç olduğunu göstermiştir. Bu nedenle LSA Türkçe versiyonu yaşlı bireylerle ilgili araştırma ve uygulama alanları için geçerli ve güvenilir bir ölçek olarak kullanılabilir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• sağlık
• yaşlı
• Günlük yaşam aktiviteleri
• yaşam alanı değerlendirme

THE CULTURAL ADAPTATION, VALIDATION, AND RELIABILITY OF THE TURKISH VERSION OF THE LIFE SPACE ASSESSMENT

Abstract

Purpose: The aim of this study was to determine the reliability and validity of the Turkish version of the Life Space Assessment (LSA) in older adults. Methods: A hundred fifty-two elderly people with a mean age was 72.81±7.63 years recruited to the study. Following the forward-backward translation procedure, the LSA scores were compared with a number of mobility and general health related variables, including the Physical Activity Scale for the Elderly (PASE) and the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) to test the concurrent validity. Results: None of the items in the LSA were changed. Cronbach’s α coefficient was 0.714 for the initial evaluation. The intraclass correlation coefficient for the test-retest reliability was 0.991 with a 95% confidence interval of 0.986–0.994. It found that the highest consistence was obtained in the equipment scores. All the subscores of LSA found to have a significant relationship with PASE scores and SF-36 subscores. A very strong positive correlation found between the total score of LSA and PASE (r = 0.896). Similarly, a very strong correlation observed between SF-36's subscore physical function, and LSA composite score (r = 0.841). Conclusion: The results of the study showed that the Turkish version of LSA has strong measurement features and that the LSA is a sensitive tool for assessing the life domains of elderly individuals related to their general health and physical activity level. Therefore, the Turkish version of the LSA could be used as a reliable and valid scale in research and practice areas related to elderly people.

Keywords

• health
• Life Space Assessment
• activities of daily living
• aged

Kaynakça

1. Iezzoni LI, McCarthy EP, Davis RB, Siebens H. Mobility difficulties are not only a problem of old age. J Gen Intern Med. 2001;16(4):235-43.
2. Dipietro L, Campbell WW, Buchner DM, Erickson KI, Powell KE, Bloodgood B, et al. Physical Activity, Injurious Falls, and Physical Function in Aging: An Umbrella Review. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2019;51(6):1303-1313.
3. Fristedt S, Kammerlind A-S, Bravell ME, Fransson EI. Concurrent validity of the Swedish version of the life-space assessment questionnaire. BMC Geriatr. 2016;16(1):181.
4. Hellmers S, Izadpanah B, Dasenbrock L, Diekmann R, Bauer JM, Hein A, et al. Towards an Automated Unsupervised Mobility Assessment for Older People Based on Inertial TUG Measurements. Sensors (Basel). 2018;18(10):3310.
5. Auais M, Alvarado B, Guerra R, Curcio C, Freeman EE, Ylli A, et al. Fear of falling and its association with life-space mobility of older adults: a cross-sectional analysis using data from five international sites. Age Ageing. 2017;46(3):459-465.
6. Mesquita R, Gonçalves CG, Hayashi D, Costa Vde S, Teixeira Dde C, de Freitas ER, et al. Smoking status and its relationship with exercise capacity, physical activity in daily life and quality of life in physically independent, elderly individuals. Physiotherapy. 2015;101(1):55-61.
7. dos Santos Tavares DM, Fernandes Bolina A, Aparecida Dias F, dos Santos Ferreira PC, José Haas V. Quality of life of elderly. Comparison between urban and rural areas. Invest Educ Enferm. 2014;32(3):401-13.
8. Peel C, Baker PS, Roth DL, Brown CJ, Bodner EV, Allman RM. Assessing mobility in older adults: the UAB Study of Aging Life-Space Assessment. Phys Ther. 2005;85(10):1008-19.

9. Tseng YC, Gau BS, Lou MF. Validation of the Chinese version of the Life-Space Assessment in community-dwelling older adults. Geriatr Nurs. 2020;41(4):381-386.
10. Taylor JK, Buchan IE, van der Veer SN. Assessing life-space mobility for a more holistic view on wellbeing in geriatric research and clinical practice. Aging Clin Exp Res. 2019;31(4):439-445.
11. May D, Nayak U, Isaacs B. The life-space diary: a measure of mobility in old people at home. Int Rehabil Med. 1985;7(4):182-6.
12. York Cornwell E, Cagney KA. Aging in Activity Space: Results From Smartphone-Based GPS-Tracking of Urban Seniors. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 2017;72(5):864-875.
13. Auger C, Demers L, Gélinas I, Routhier F, Jutai J, Guérette C, et al. Development of a French-Canadian version of the Life-Space Assessment (LSA-F): content validity, reliability and applicability for power mobility device users. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2009;4(1):31-41.
14. Shimada H, Sawyer P, Harada K, Kaneya S, Nihei K, Asakawa Y, et al. Predictive validity of the classification schema for functional mobility tests in instrumental activities of daily living decline among older adults. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2010;91(2):241-6.
15. Pedersen MM, Kjær-Sørensen P, Midtgaard J, Brown CJ, Bodilsen AC. A Danish version of the life-space assessment (LSA-DK) - translation, content validity and cultural adaptation using cognitive interviewing in older mobility limited adults. BMC Geriatr. 2019;19(1):312.
16. Curcio C-L, Alvarado BE, Gomez F, Guerra R, Guralnik J, Zunzunegui MV. Life-Space Assessment scale to assess mobility: validation in Latin American older women and men. Aging Clin Exp Res. 2013;25(5):553-60.
17. Arafat SY, Chowdhury HR, Qusar MMAS, Hafez MA. Cross cultural adaptation & psychometric validation of research instruments: A methodological review. J Behav Health. 2016;5(3):129-136.
18. Votruba KL, Persad C, Giordani B. Cognitive deficits in healthy elderly population with “normal” scores on the Mini-Mental State Examination. J Geriatr Psychiatry Neurol. 2016;29(3):126-32.
19. Ayvat E, Kilinc M, Kirdi N. The Turkish version of the Physical Activity Scale for the Elderly (PASE): its cultural adaptation, validation, and reliability. Turk J Med Sci. 2017;47(3):908-15.
20. Uysal SA, Demircioğlu A, Şahin Ü, Karabulut E, Kocaman AA, Karapinar M, et al. Turkish Validity and Reliability of Community Integration Questionnaire in Elderly Individuals. Turk J Physiother Rehabil. 2018;29(3):66-72
21. Gözüm S, Aksayan S. A guide for transcultural adaptation of the scale II: psychometric characteristics and cross-cultural comparison. Turkish Journal of Research and Development in Nursing. 2003;5(1):3-14.
22. Everitt BS. Multivariate analysis: the need for data, and other problems. Br J Psychiatry. 197;126:237-40.
23. Prion S, Haerling KA. Making sense of methods and measurement: Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient. Clin Simul Nurs. 2014;11(10): 587-588.
24. Cleland V, Timperio A, Sharman MJ, Dollman J. Test-retest reliability of a self-reported physical activity environment instrument for use in rural settings. Aust J Rural. Health. 2020;28(2):168-179.
25. Cavanaugh JT, Crawford K. Life-Space Assessment and Physical Activity Scale for the Elderly: validity of proxy informant responses. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2014;95(8):1527-32.
26. Ullrich P, Werner C, Bongartz M, Kiss R, Bauer J, Hauer K. Validation of a modified life-space assessment in multimorbid older persons with cognitive impairment. Gerontologist. 2019;59(2):e66-e75.
27. Perracini MR, Franco MRC, Ricci NA, Blake C. Physical activity in older people - Case studies of how to make change happen. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 2017 Apr;31(2):260-274.
28. Ji M, Zhou Y, Liao J, Feng F. Pilot study on the Chinese version of the Life Space Assessment among community-dwelling elderly. Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2015;61(2):301-6.
29. de Oliveira LDSSCB, Souza EC, Rodrigues RAS, Fett CA, Piva AB. The effects of physical activity on anxiety, depression, and quality of life in elderly people living in the community. Trends Psychiatry Psychother. 2019;41(1):36-42.
30. Hamacher D, Hamacher D, Krowicki M, Schega L. Between-day test-retest reliability of gait variability in older individuals improves with a familiarization trial. Aging Clin Exp Res. 2017;29(2):327-329.
31. Zhou Y, Yuan Q, Yang C. Transport for the Elderly: Activity Patterns, Mode Choices, and Spatiotemporal Constraints. Sustainability. 2020;12(23):10024.
32. Horner MW, Duncan MD, Wood BS, Valdez-Torres Y, Stansbury C. Do aging populations have differential accessibility to activities? Analyzing the spatial structure of social, professional, and business opportunities. Travel Behav Soc. 2015;2(3):182-191.
33. Farrag N, Abou-Elwafa HS, El-Gilany AH. Prevalence and predictors of physical activity among community-dwelling older adults in Mansoura, Egypt. Am J Prev Med Public Health. 2019;5(1):1-10.
34. Tuvemo Johnson S, Martin C, Anens E, Johansson A-C, Hellström K. Older Adults’ Opinions on Fall Prevention in Relation to Physical Activity Level. J Appl Gerontol. 2016;37(1):58-78.
35. Tseng Y-C, Gau B-S, Lou M-F. Validation of the Chinese version of the Life-Space Assessment in community-dwelling older adults. Geriatr Nurs. 2020;41(4):381-86.
36. Froehlich-Grobe K, Andresen EM, Caburnay C, White GW. Measuring health-related quality of life for persons with mobility impairments: an enabled version of the short-form 36 (SF-36E). Qual Life Res. 2008;17(5):751.
37. Andersen DA, Roos BA, Stanziano DC, Gonzalez NM, Signorile JF. Walker use, but not falls, is associated with lower physical functioning and health of residents in an assisted-living environment. Clin Interv Aging. 2007;2(1):123-37.