Assessing Housing Accessibility for Older Adults in Japan: A Content Validity Study
Assessing Housing Accessibility for Older Adults in Japan: A Content Validity Study
复制标题
评估日本老年人的住房可及性：内容有效性研究
DOI：
10.1093/geroni/igaa057.357
复制
发表时间：
2020-12-16
影响因子：
7
通讯作者：
Iwarsson S
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Tsuchiya-Ito R;Slaug B;Sano T;Tajima M;Itoh S;Uda K;Yamanaka T;Iwarsson S
在日本，缺乏经过科学验证的工具来评估老年人的住房可达性。为了解决这一问题，执行了一项严格的程序，将瑞典开发的现有住房评估工具--住房启用程序--调整为在日本有效使用。使用既定的翻译程序将原始工具翻译成日语。在这个过程中，研究人员检查了技术术语的适当性，并调整了规格，以符合日本的标准。采用专家小组的方法来验证《日本住房促进者》的内容。13名注册职业治疗师、建筑师和护理经理(平均经验=14.5年)作为专家参与了内容效度研究。他们就评估日本住房可获得性的相关性对每个项目进行了评级，从1(=不相关)到4(=高度相关)。他们提出了调整和增加的建议，他们认为这些调整和补充与日本住房和建筑设计的特殊性有关。在个别评分后，专家们聚集在一起，就修订项目清单的建议进行了协商一致的讨论。因此，项目的数量大幅增加(从161项增加到283项)。计算每个项目的内容有效性指数(CVI)(即专家对相关性的评分至少为3的比例)。使用推荐的CVI≥0.78阈值，超过90%的条目被认为是相关的，从而支持内容的有效性。但是，大量物项可能会危及该文书的可行性。需要进一步的研究来评估可行性、与标准相关的效度和可靠性方面。
Scientifically validated tools to assess housing accessibility for older adults in Japan have been lacking. To address this, a rigorous procedure of adapting an existing housing assessment tool—the Housing Enabler, developed in Sweden—for valid use in Japan was conducted. The original tool was translated into the Japanese language, using established translation procedures. In the process, researchers checked the appropriateness of technical terms and adjusted specifications to be in accordance with Japanese standards. An expert panel approach was used to validate the content of the Japanese Housing Enabler. Thirteen certified occupational therapists, architects and care-managers (average experience=14.5 years) participated as experts in the content validity study. They rated each item with regard to relevance for assessing housing accessibility in Japan, on a scale from 1(=Not relevant) to 4(= Highly relevant). They suggested adjustments and additions that they found to be relevant to capture particularities of Japanese housing and building design. After individual ratings, the experts gathered for consensus discussions on suggested revisions of the item list. As a result, the number of items was substantially increased (from 161 to 283). A content validity index (CVI) was calculated for each item (i.e., the proportion of experts rating the relevance as at least 3). Using a recommended threshold of CVI ≥0.78, more than 90% of the items were considered relevant, thus supporting the content validity. However, the large amount of items might jeopardize the feasibility of the instrument. Further studies are needed to evaluate feasibility, criterion-related validity and aspects of reliability.