4.2 Article

Development and validation of a Perceived Relocation Stress Scale for older individuals transferred to long-term care facilities in Taiwan

Journal

INTERNATIONAL HEALTH
Volume 15, Issue 4, Pages 376-382

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/inthealth/ihac041

Keywords

factor analysis; long-term care facility; perceived relocation stress; reliability; scale; validity

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study developed and validated a Perceived Relocation Stress Scale to assess the stress perceived by older individuals being transferred to a long-term care facility. The results showed that the scale has good reliability and validity.
Background The aim of the current study was to develop and validate a Perceived Relocation Stress Scale. Methods A cross-sectional research design was used. A total of 175 older adults residing in long-term care facilities in Southern Taiwan for at least 1 y were recruited. An exploratory factor analysis was performed to examine item convergent and discriminant validity. Concurrent validity was checked using the Depression Anxiety and Stress scale. The reliability was analyzed using Cronbach's alpha and intraclass correlation coefficients. Results The face and content validity of the scale were verified by adequately measuring the scale items. Factor analysis consisted of four components (challenge/chance, positive appraisal, threat, loss), with a total variance of 67.35%. The content validity was determined by an expert panel to systematically examine the relevance of all items. The results of item convergent and discriminant validity supported the constructs of the scale. The alpha coefficient for the overall scale was .958, indicating good internal consistency reliability. Conclusions The Perceived Relocation Stress Scale is a reliable and valid measurement to assess the stress perceived by older individuals being transferred to a long-term care facility.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available