Page 120 - IJPS-11-1

International Journal of
Population Studies Developing individual active aging measurement tool

Table 4. Descriptive results of active aging and dimensions 2011; Verbrugge et al., 1996). The importance of ICT use
is shown as a participation variable and part of the concept
Indices Median S.D. Minimum Maximum of active aging, which agrees with Boudiny & Mortelmans
Physical health index 0.65 0.20 0.03 0.97 (2011). Subsequently, as stated by previous authors who
Objective physical 0.60 0.32 0 1 referred to ICT’s benefits (Boudiny & Mortelmans, 2011;
health index Small et al., 2009), these results are in line with the current
Subjective physical 0.70 0.16 0.06 0.94 encouragement of their use to promote older people’s
health index inclusion, and they provide empirical support for their
Functionality index 0.94 0.15 0 1 inclusion as constituents of the concept of active aging. We
Cognitive index 0.86 0.35 0 1 found lifelong learning to be another important dimension
Affective index 0.47 0.23 0 1 that influences older people’s well-being (Walker, 2002).
Affective index: Goals 0.33 0.35 0 1 Productive activity, both in terms of employment and
Affective index: Emotions 0.43 0.30 0 1 social participation, contributed relatively little to the active
aging construct. The reasons behind this may be related
Affective index: 0.65 0.26 0 1 to the fact that the proportion of older people in working
Situation in life age was small in relation to the total age range, both for
Social index 0.91 0.14 0 1 the current unemployment trend, the retirement schemes,
Social index: Family 0.91 0.16 0 1
and the lower labor opportunities at older ages (Avramov
Social index: Friends 0.92 0.16 0 1 & Maskova, 2003; Boudiny, 2013; Hirsch, Macpherson, &
Employment index 0.08 0.28 0 1 Hardy, 2000; Walker, 2006; WHO, 2002). A relatively low
Participation in society 0.38 0.49 0 1 level of social participation was found, for instance, in the
index case of volunteering, due to the frequent existence of upper
Use of ICT index 0.42 0.35 0 1 age limits (Foster & Walker, 2013; Gauthier & Smeeding,
Lifelong learning index 0.42 0.28 0 1 2003). Another factor that could explain this result is the
Leisure index 0.51 0.17 0.07 0.93 share of people living in suburban environments, where
Global health index 0.77 0.13 0.27 0.99 the attendance at volunteer organizations or the distance
to relatives make participation difficult (Monreal, 2008).
Global participation index 0.45 0.25 0.02 1.00
Moreover, sometimes tension exists among work, care
Global active aging index 0.66 0.15 0.18 1.00 responsibilities, volunteering, and leisure; thus, certain
Abbreviations: ICT: Information and communication technologies; patterns of leisure can impede social participation (Dury
S.D.: Standard deviation. et al., 2015).

the combination of these elements, active aging would be Despite these findings, this study also has some inherent
restricted to health, and even from a multidimensional limitations. First, the cross-sectional nature of the research
perspective, it would omit active and involved lifestyles does not permit the verification of the causal relationship
(Boudiny, 2013). Leisure activities contributed the most to among variables. On this topic, each component of active
aging could act as a predictor as well (Hasmanová, 2011).
the participation variables. This result is in agreement with However, the proposed tool had a good representation of
the authors, who argue that leisure activities indirectly the different components of active aging presented in the
increase life satisfaction (Boudiny & Mortelmans, 2011; literature according to different approaches. Second, there
Bowling, 2008; Clarke & Warren, 2007). Different types is a lack of a gold standard for measuring and rating active
of leisure activities were included, even those traditionally aging (Rantanen et al., 2019), which makes the complete
excluded from being considered rather passive, such as validation process difficult. Although this study was
watching TV, solving crosswords, or gardening, since developed in an attempt to provide a new index based on
they are important to the oldest (Avramov & Moskova, an empirically supported model that covers a wide range
2003; Clarke & Warren, 2007; Pettigrew & Roberts, 2008; of indicators, a future validation study should include
Townsend et al., 2006). Home-based and solitary leisure alternatives for testing the criterion-based validity as well to
activities were also considered part of the index. The prove if the new index is more inclusive as intended. Third,
rationale for including them was to count the diversity although one of the aims was to determine the influence of
of activities that embrace the changing preferences and active aging on the cognitive and subjective components of
selection of activities derived from constraints in health well-being and life satisfaction, it could also be interesting
and physical abilities, which tends to lead to more home- to add quality of life as an outcome variable (WHO,
based leisure (Gauthier & Smeeding, 2003; Venn & Arber, 2002). Fourth, most of the variables are assessed by self-

Volume 11 Issue 1 (2025) 114 https://doi.org/10.36922/ijps.428