4.5 Article

SODA: a new questionnaire for the assessment of life satisfaction in late life span

期刊

AGING CLINICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL RESEARCH
卷 32, 期 3, 页码 515-533

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s40520-019-01211-9

关键词

Well-being; Aging; Life span; Questionnaire; Italian; Life satisfaction; Elderly; Assessment

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Established measures of well-being rarely examine active lifestyle or religious behaviors. Though these could be assessed using individual measures, in older populations, the availability of a brief composite instrument with adequate psychometric properties would be desirable. Aims Two studies were conducted to assess the psychometric properties (i.e., item adequacy, factorial structure, reliability and validity) of a new tool that was developed to self-rate personal satisfaction among Italian elders, the SODdisfazione dell'Anziano (SODA) Questionnaire. Methods 135 young adults (mean age = 29.5 years, SD = 7.4) took part in Study 1, whereas Study 2 was carried out with 474 cognitively healthy 60-98-year-old people, that were asked to complete a battery of well-known well-being measures including the SODA one. Results Study 1 showed that the SODA questionnaire is a reliable and valid self-report tool defined by three factors, assessing satisfaction about physical and cognitive health, religious well-being, and satisfaction about time spent for leisure activities, respectively. Study 2 replicated the outcomes of Study 1, highlighting the factor structure of the SODA inventory. Moreover, a series of stepwise linear regression analyses pointed out what factors (i.e., education, physical health, social desirability, participation to outdoor leisure activities, gender, and age) predicted the variance relative to the SODA indexes. Discussion Current findings show the solid psychometric properties of SODA. Conclusions SODA represents a brief, but reliable and valid, instrument for the assessment of satisfaction (focused on the state level) in late adult span.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据