Page 117 - IJPS-11-1

International Journal of
Population Studies Developing individual active aging measurement tool

methodology and steps proposed by the OECD (2008). standardization, and then, the arithmetic average of the
Some of the original scales used to measure the dimensions indicators was calculated. Each index can be classified
of active aging had range scores starting at values different into three levels based on the criteria of the Program of
from 0. Therefore, after scoring each scale following the the United Nations for Development (2006), where <0.5
corresponding instructions, the individual scores were means low level, between 0.5 and 0.79, moderate level, and
recoded to be added to the index. The minimum score in >0.80, high level.
each item and scale was represented as 0, corresponding After the index was determined, a data analysis
to the lack of presence of the dimension assessed, instead was conducted using SPSS 21.0 for Windows (IBM
of having a minimum score of 5, which could correspond Corporation, New York, USA). A descriptive analysis was
depending on the correction procedure, for instance. As carried out, in which means and standard deviations were
leisure was scored based on frequency regarding a large calculated. Moreover, the Pearson correlation coefficient
number and variety of activities, it would be difficult to was calculated to quantify the degree and direction of the
fulfill all the leisure activities at the highest level. For this relationships between the variables comprising the health
reason, these variables were recoded before calculating the and participation dimensions.
leisure dimension index (Table 1).
The values of each subdimension and subscale are 3. Results
detailed in Tables 2 and 3. The indexes for the subscales After assessing the psychometrics, the index was
were first calculated by summing all the responses and then constructed, and descriptive results were extracted. The
standardizing each subscale score using the minimum- mean and standard deviation were calculated for all
maximum method (OECD, 2008) (Equation I). The result dimensions and sub-dimensions comprising the active
was a score for each dimension on a scale from 0 to 1, aging index (Table 4).
where 0 is the worst result, and 1 is the best result possible.
The level of active aging in this sample was moderate
Realscoreminimumscore

Index (I) (M = 0.66). The dimension of global health (M = 0.77) had
Maximumscore minimumscore a higher value than the participation variables (M = 0.45).

Health, functionality, and social state achieved the highest
To obtain a higher dimension, the mean of all indices means (M = 0.94) and (M = 0.91), respectively, and goals
composing the upper dimension was determined, and positive emotions achieved the lowest values (M = 0.33)
providing the same weight to all subdimensions. As an and (M = 0.43), respectively. Regarding participation,
example, to calculate the physical health subdimension, leisure had the highest value (M = 0.51), followed by ICT
the subscales of objective health and subjective health and lifelong learning (M = 0.42). Employment had the
were calculated following the steps indicated above for lowest value (M = 0.08).

Table 1. Scores of leisure dimension 4. Discussion
Subscale Subscale range Recoded values This study was carried out to develop an individual
Artistic 0 – 4 0: 0 measurement instrument that quantifies the degree of
1 – 2: 0.5 active aging of a person and summarizes it into one unique
3 – 4: 1 continuous score. This tool is based on an empirically
Productive 0 – 4 0: 0 supported model of active aging. This study contributes
1 – 2: 0.5 to the empirical literature in the field of active aging
3 – 4: 1
paradigm with a more comprehensive approach based on
Recreative 0 – 4 0: 0 a multidimensional perspective and the development of a
1 – 2: 0.5
3 – 4: 1 tested measurement instrument for active aging aimed at
Social 0 – 6 0: 0 the individual level. For this, a tool was constructed based
1 – 2: 0.5 on an empirical model (Marsillas et al., 2017), following
3 – 4: 1 the steps recommended by experts to construct composite
Solitary 0 – 4 0: 0 indices (OECD, 2008; United Nations for Development,
1 – 2: 0.5 2006). The instrument presented here facilitates the
3 – 4: 1 achievement of an individual continuous score not only
Outdoors 0 – 6 0: 0 in each of the dimensions or subdimensions comprising
1 – 3: 0.5 active aging but also in the concept as a whole. The
4 – 6: 1 scores provided show not only the performance in each

Volume 11 Issue 1 (2025) 111 https://doi.org/10.36922/ijps.428