Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Is Collective Efficacy Age Graded? The Development and Evaluation of a New Measure of Collective Efficacy for Older Adults

Is Collective Efficacy Age Graded? The Development and Evaluation of a New Measure of Collective... Hindawi Publishing Corporation Journal of Aging Research Volume 2012, Article ID 360254, 10 pages doi:10.1155/2012/360254 Research Article Is Collective Efficacy Age Graded? The Development and Evaluation of a New Measure of Collective Efficacy for Older Adults 1 2 3 Adena M. Galinsky, Kathleen A. Cagney, and Christopher R. Browning Center on the Demography and Economics of Aging, NORC and the University of Chicago, 1155 E. 60th Street, Chicago, IL 60637, USA Departments of Sociology and Health Studies, University of Chicago, 1155 E. 60th Street, Rm 238, Chicago, IL 60637, USA Department of Sociology, Ohio State University, 214 Townshend Hall, 1885 Neil Avenue Mall, Columbus, OH 43210, USA Correspondence should be addressed to Kathleen A. Cagney, k-cagney@uchicago.edu Received 16 May 2011; Revised 7 October 2011; Accepted 27 November 2011 Academic Editor: Lindy Clemson Copyright © 2012 Adena M. Galinsky et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Objectives. Community processes are key determinants of older adults’ ability to age in place, but existing scales measuring these constructs may not provide accurate, unbiased measurements among older adults because they were designed with the concerns of child-rearing respondents in mind. This study examines the properties of a new theory-based measure of collective efficacy (CE) that accounts for the perspectives of older residents. Methods. Data come from the population-based Chicago Neighborhood Organization, Aging and Health study (N = 1,151), which surveyed adults aged 65 to 95. Using descriptive statistics, correlations, and factor analysis, we explored the acceptability, reliability, and validity of the new measure. Results. Principal component analysis indicated that the new scale measures a single latent factor. It had good internal consistency reliability, was highly correlated with the original scale, and was similarly associated with neighborhood exchange and disorder, self-rated health, mobility, and loneliness. The new scale also showed less age-differentiated nonresponse compared to the original scale. Discussion. The older adult CE scale has reliability and validity equivalent to that of the existing measure but benefits from a more developed theoretical grounding and reduced likelihood of age-related differential nonresponse. 1. Introduction The perceptions and norms of behavior likely relevant to the three WHO factors fall under the rubric of a well- Evidence suggests that community processes are important developed sociological construct, collective efficacy. Collective to older adults’ ability to age in place [1, 2]. Of the eight fac- efficacy (CE) refers to perceptions and norms of two cate- tors identified in the World Health Organization’s report on gories of social processes that represent two kinds of com- age-friendly cities [3], three seem fundamentally dependent munity social resources: trust and connection, commonly on community processes. These three, Age-Friendly Outdoor referred to as social cohesion, and expectations for action, Spaces (WHO factor 1), Social Participation (WHO factor 4), commonly referred to as informal social control. Studies have and Respect and Social Inclusion (WHO factor 5) may all be shown the importance of CE for multiple aspects of well- supported by structural innovations and resource infusion, being among older adults [4–7]. In particular, CE has been but, in all likelihood, cannot be sustained without on- shown to play a role in enhancing older adults’ physical going community involvement. Community-level behavior health and neighborhood satisfaction, which may predict is important not only for the immediate results produced by their intentions to move and actual migration [2, 5, 8–14]. discrete actions and social exchange, but also for its role in Unfortunately, existing scales measuring this construct may shaping the perceptions and norms of behavior held by the not be ideal for use with older adults because they were community’s residents. 2 Journal of Aging Research designed with the concerns of child-rearing respondents in A range of theories from the aging and life course lit- mind [15]. For example, scale items that ask about ex- erature provide us with a framework for generating a set pectations of neighbor cooperation in monitoring children of cues for social cohesion and informal social control that may be less relevant to adults whose children are grown. would be particularly salient to older adults [27–33]. A key At the same time, the priorities of older adults are not focus of later life is to develop mechanisms to adapt to new necessarily reflected in these existing scales. challenges, including frailty and morbidity and decreased At the individual level, a number of scales measuring scope and density of social networks [30, 32, 34–37]. As such constructs as anxiety and life satisfaction have been applied to the CE framework, these perspectives suggest developed based on theory and evidence regarding the that perceptions of neighbors’ willingness to assist older distinctiveness of older adults’ experiences (e.g., [16–19]). adults with tasks, and perceptions of neighborhood norms These and similar scales are able to measure the constructs related to regulating behavior with the goal of enhancing of interest among older adults more accurately and with neighborhood safety and traversability, will be particularly less response bias because they take into account the unique important. At the same time, older adults are not only concerns, challenges, and goals of adults in the later decades concerned with compensating for losses and coping with of their lives [20]. For example, scales that feature items that challenges. Generativity is also a key component of later are more salient to older adults show increased instrument life, defined as helping the next generation by, for instance, acceptability in the form of higher response rates and lower passing on wisdom and thereby leaving a legacy [27–29]. differential nonresponse [21]. Such scales, by providing Within the CE framework, this perspective incorporates the more easily recognized and comprehended items, also reduce notion that intergenerational exchange may contribute to a response burden [22]. By following the same principles, prosocial orientation and a mutual respect for community scales measuring neighborhood social processes can be contributions across the life course. designed such that they produce more accurate measurement In the remainder of this section, we discuss the research among older adults. literature underlying our selection of the four specific types In this study we describe and test a new measure of of cues for CE that we believe would be particularly salient CE. This measure was developed specifically for use in to older adults. The two types of social cohesion cues that we older populations, taking into account the unique ways that hypothesize to be particularly salient to older adults, based people of their age and cohort interpret and respond to on theory in urban sociology and literature on aging, are common environmental cues, and the particular cues that we those that relate to active caretaking of vulnerable residents hypothesized would be uniquely important to older adults. and age integration/lack of ageism. The two types of informal In the first part of this paper, we explain the theoretical social control cues that we hypothesize to be particularly framework guiding our identification of environmental cues salient to older adults, based on the theory and literature on for CE likely to be salient to older adults. In the second part of aging, are those that relate to minimizing social incivility and the paper, we test the new measure’s instrument acceptability, maximizing accessibility. dimensionality, reliability, and criterion validity in an older Older adults may be particularly attuned to displays of adult population. In the third part of the paper, we appraise solidarity in the form of social cohesion cues related to active the new measure’s construct validity by examining its caring and caretaking. Frailty and decreased mobility make association with individual health-related outcomes. Our some tasks that are easy in middle age significantly more aim was to construct a scale that can be used in research difficult in later life [38, 39]. Simultaneously, many older on neighborhood social processes, the health of older adults, adults experience a decrease in the scope and density of their and other factors that relate to aging in place. social networks [40, 41]. As a result of this combination of Our theoretical framework combines CE theory with a changes, older adults are often more reliant on assistance consideration of the particular challenges and opportunities from community members [42, 43]. Perceptions of the avail- of the older adult life stage. As alluded to above, CE theory ability of neighbor assistance may be particularly important attempts to explain the association between neighborhood to the well-being of older women compared to older men structural factors, social processes, and individual-level out- and older single men compared to older married men, who comes by positing that the neighborhood processes of social are unlikely and unable, respectively, to rely on their spouses cohesion and informal social control mediate the relation- for help [44]. Older adults who believe that their neighbors ship between the structural factors and individual outcomes will provide active caretaking may be more confident about [23, 24]. For example, compositional socioeconomic status their ability to stay in their homes. Our new measure of CE may impact social cohesion, which in turn affects self-rated includes two items designed to capture the tendency toward health, asthma rates, and inflammatory marker levels by active caretaking facet of the social cohesion construct. reducing stress and fear [4–7, 25]. CE is therefore likely Older adults may also be particularly attuned to, and able to be a part of the societal system that supports healthy to benefit substantially from, social cohesions cues related living, safeguards individuals against adverse health events, to age integration and lack of ageism. Aging societies have and thereby enables aging in place [26]. CE is related to, experienced an increase in social separation of age groups, but distinct from, social network interaction and exchange even as age heterogeneity within most neighborhoods has and social and physical disorder. The first is concerned with increased [45–48]. One reason for the persistence of social norms and expectations, while the second and third refer to segregation by age despite decreased logistical barriers to actual behavior and conditions. socializing across age boundaries may be ageism, which may Journal of Aging Research 3 interfere with communication across agelines [49]. Another venturing outside, and (2) it may relate to actual improved factor impeding such communication is the decrease in conditions [8, 61, 62]. Maintenance of the environment can information processing speed and loss of hearing that com- in turn prevent the adverse health events that constitute monly occurs at older ages [50–52]. These factors combine barriers to aging in place [13, 14, 26]. Our new measure of to create a situation in which sustained effort is required for CE includes two items designed to capture the expectations cross-generational socializing. for actions that maximize accessibility, a component of the Perceptions of opportunities for cross-generational inter- informal social control construct. actions are relevant to older adults priorities, and ability to age in place, for a number of reasons. Communities in which 2. Methods older and younger people associate may be communities in 2.1. Data and Sample. We used data from the Chicago which there are fewer age-based misunderstandings, biases, Neighborhood, Organization, Aging and Health study fears, and resentments, and greater empathy on the part of (NOAH). This study surveyed 1,500 adults aged 65 and over younger people for the challenges that come with later life living in 80 selected Chicago neighborhood clusters. Each [45, 48, 49, 53]. Older adults who perceive their communities cluster was defined by two to three census tracts consisting as age integrated may therefore feel safer venturing outside to of approximately 4,000 housing units. The sample frame participate in community life, because they would have less consisted of all households in the city of Chicago containing reason to fear and more reason to feel connected to a wider at least one member 65 years of age or older. The weighted range of their neighbors. Expectations of communication response rate for households with a phone number was across age lines also encompass expectations for the ability to 55.3% while the rate for those households for which a phone potentially pass on wisdom, neighborhood history, or prac- number could not be identified was 12.4%. The overall ticaladviceand thereby feel andbeuseful[54]. Such oppor- weighted response rate for the survey was 44.3%, a good rate tunities for generativity are likely to be crucial to neigh- for a telephone interview by contemporary standards [63, borhood satisfaction; being able to fill this social role has 64]. Interviews were conducted over the phone in English been associated with lower mortality [55]. Our new meas- and Spanish between August 2006 and September 2007. The ure of CE includes three items designed to capture the age NOAH study was approved by the institutional review boards integration facet of the social cohesion construct. of both NORC and the Division of Biological Sciences at Regarding the domain of informal social control, we the University of Chicago. All participants provided verbal expect that older adults pay increased attention to the consent. community’s expectations for behaviors that minimize social The sample consisted of the 76.7% of the 1,507 respon- incivility, as a result of reverse ageism (prejudice of older dents with complete demographic, health, and community people against younger people), the increase in frailty that process data (N = 1, 151). Descriptive statistics are shown in often accompanies advancing age [48, 56]. Older people with Table 1. The mean age was 73 (range 65–95), and 68% were impaired balance, reduced muscle strength, and limited gait female. Over two fifths (44%) were non-Hispanic White, speed may be more likely than spry younger adults to find over a third were Non-Hispanic Black (35.8%), and the rest the loud, unpredictable peregrinations of rowdy teenagers were Hispanic (14.9%) or Other (5%). About a third (32.6%) threatening [48]. Furthermore, as a result of reverse ageism, were married, and about a tenth (9.8%) lived with someone elderly residents may perceive even subdued teenagers as under the age of 18. About a quarter had less than 12 years of a threat [56]. Their perceptions of the neighborhood’s education, about another quarter had graduated from high expectations for protecting vulnerable residents from mali- school, and a little under half had some college or more. cious young people may be particularly important for older A little more than a tenth of the sample had lived in their residents’ willingness to venture outside on a regular basis neighborhood for less than 10 years, while a little less than and for their neighborhood satisfaction. Our new measure three quarters had lived in their neighborhood for more than of CE includes one item designed to capture the expectation 20 years. Those missing data, who were therefore excluded for actions that minimize social incivility, a component of the from the sample as described above, were more likely to informal social control construct. be White Non-Hispanic than to be any other race/ethnicity Lastly, increased frailty and disability may also increase combination. the salience of cues for informal social control in the form of expectations for behaviors that maximize accessibility. For many older adults, navigating their neighborhoods becomes 2.2. Measures of CE. The CE questions were presented to the more difficult as their mobility decreases and their vulnera- respondent in two blocks. The first block was introduced bility for adverse health outcomes resulting from interactions with the sentences, “Now I’m going to read some statements with environmental hazards increases [57–60]. Older frail about things that people in your neighborhood may or may adults may be more attuned to obstacles and hazards in not do. For each of these statements, please tell me whether the physical environment, particularly as those environments you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or become dilapidated [61]. Increased expectations for actions strongly disagree.” The second block was introduced with the aimed at improving the safety and integrity of the environ- sentence,“Foreachofthe following,pleasetellmeifitisvery ment may be related to increased likelihood of maintaining likely, somewhat likely, somewhat unlikely, or very unlikely and using physical abilities and competencies for two that people in your neighborhood would act in the following reasons: (1) it may be related to increased confidence about manner.” 4 Journal of Aging Research Table 1: Descriptive statistics. this neighborhood socialize with younger adults as well as people their own age. The answer options for each of these were strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, Age (years) and strongly disagree. The active caretaking facet of social 65–74 59.7 cohesion was measured with two items, one in each block: 75–84 31.4 your neighbors would shop for groceries for you, if you were 85–95 8.6 sick; people in your neighborhood would check on older or more vulnerable residents if there was a heat wave. The Sex answer options for the first item were the same as those Female 67.7 for the age integration items. The answer options for the Male 32.3 second item were very likely, somewhat likely, somewhat Race/ethnicity unlikely, and very unlikely. The maximizing accessibility White Non-Hispanic 44.0 facet of informal social control was measured with two Black Non-Hispanic 35.8 items in the second block: people in your neighborhood Hispanic 14.9 would help to keep the sidewalks and other public spaces Other 5.0 clear if there was a snowstorm; people in the neighborhood Married 32.6 would help to get the problem corrected, if there was a Live with child under age 18 9.8 problem in the neighborhood that affected older adults, like crumbling sidewalks or unsafe parks. The answer options Education, in years for both items ranged from very likely to very unlikely. <12 24.5 The minimizing social incivility facet of informal social 12 26.7 control was measured with a single item in the second block: >12 48.7 neighborhood residents would intervene if an older person Years in neighborhood in your neighborhood was being threatened by a group of <10 11.3 teenagers. The answer options for this item again ranged 10–19 16.8 from very likely to very unlikely. 20–29 12.6 30–39 19.2 2.3. Demographic and Health Measures. Sociodemographic 40+ 40.1 measures included age, race/ethnicity, and marital status. An indicator for the presence of a child under the age of 18 in the household of the respondent was constructed using the 2.2.1. Collective Efficacy—Original Scale Items. The original list generated by a household roster. Health was measured CE scale, composed of eight items, first appeared in the using a self-report measure that asked: overall, how would Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods you rate your health in the past 4 weeks: excellent, very good, [65]. In the NOAH survey, the items were administered good, fair, poor, or very poor? We treated self-rated health as alongside the new CE items. The following three items were an ordinal categorical variable, collapsing the categories poor in the first block: this is a close knit neighborhood; people and very poor into one, because less than 2% of the sample around here are willing to help their neighbors; people in answered “very poor”. A measure of mobility was constructed this neighborhood can be trusted. The next five items were in using two measures taken from the Health and Retirement the second block: your neighbors would break up a fight in Survey (2002) and two measures adapted from the California front of your house in which someone was being threatened Health and Interview Survey (CHIS). The resulting ordinal or beaten; your neighbors would do something about it if a variable had the following categories: has difficulty walking group of neighborhood children were skipping school and across a room, has difficulty walking one block, walks less hanging out on a street corner; your neighbors would do than 10 minutes or more each week, walks 10 minutes or something about it if some children were spray-painting more once or a few times each week, walks 10 minutes or graffiti on a local building; neighborhood residents would more daily, walks 10 minutes or more multiple times a day. organize to try to do something to keep the fire station open Loneliness was measured using Hughes et al. [66] three-item if because of budget cuts the fire station closest to your scale. It has a range of 0 to 3 and a mean of 1.4. home was going to be closed down by the city; people in your neighborhood would scold a child who was showing disrespect to an adult. 2.4. Neighborhood Process Measures. Besides CE, NOAH measured two other neighborhood processes. Neighborhood 2.2.2. Collective Efficacy—New Scale Items. The new CE disorder was measured with a four-item scale from the scale, composed of eight items, was created by two of the PHDCN and was introduced with the sentence, “I’m going authors. The age integration facet of social cohesion was to read a list of things that are problems in some neigh- measured with three items in the first block: people in your borhoods. For each, please tell me how much of a problem neighborhood treat older people in this neighborhood with it is in your neighborhood—a big problem, somewhat of a respect; younger adults and children generally know who problem, or not a problem.” The four items asked about litter, the older people in the neighborhood are; older people in graffiti, drug use and sale, and public drinking. The scale was Journal of Aging Research 5 reliable in this sample (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.74) and had a not equal between scales, however. Those in the oldest age range of 1 to 3, with a mean of 1.54. Neighborhood exchange category were more likely to be missing five of the eight items was measured with a four-item scale from the PHDCN and in the old CE scale: the trustworthy neighbors item (7.9% was introduced with the sentence, “Now I am going to versus 1.4%, P< 0.01), the scold a disrespectful child item ask about some things you might do with people in your (9.4% versus 2.4%, P< 0.01), the graffiti item (7.1% versus neighborhood. For each, please tell me if it happens often, 1.7%, P< 0.05), the skipping school item (9.4% versus 3.1%, sometimes, rarely or never.” The four items asked about P< 0.05), and the break up a fight item (4.7% versus 0.7%, doing favors, watching over homes of absent neighbors, P< 0.05). In comparison, those in the oldest age category asking for advice, and visiting. The scale was reliable in this were only more likely to be missing three of the eight items in sample (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.75) and had a range of 1 to 4, the new CE scale: the young people know older people item with a mean of 2.8. (11.0% versus 3.7%, P< 0.05), the older people socialize with young adults item (9.4% versus 3.7%,P< 0.05), and the neighbors intervene to protect threatened elder item (6.3% 2.5. Analysis. In the first section of the analysis, the prop- versus 1.7%, P< 0.05). Those in the middle age category erties of the new CE scale were examined. Instrument ac- did not differ from those in the youngest age category in ceptability and item salience were examined by comparing their likelihood of missing any of the items in the new scale response rates and differential nonresponse for each item but did differ in their likelihood of missing one item in in the original and new CE scales. Next, the new scale the original scale: the scold a disrespectful child item (4.9% was examined for dimensionality using principal component versus 2.4%, P< 0.05). Because such a small percentage of analysis. Because only one factor was identified, the next step the respondents were in the oldest age category (9%), we was to estimate internal consistency reliability by calculating recalculated these percentages comparing the youngest old Cronbach’s alpha for the new scale. Criterion validity of the to the two older groups combined. In this case, those in new scale was tested by calculating correlations with the the middle and oldest age categories were more likely to be original CE scale. Convergent validity of the new scale was missing four of the items from the original scale, but were tested by calculating the correlations of the new CE scale with only more likely to be missing two of the items from the other NOAH measures of neighborhood processes. new scale. In the old scale, these items were the trustworthy In the second section of the analysis, the construct neighbors item (4.2% versus 1.4%, P< 0.01), the fire station validity of the new CE scale was tested in a two-step process. item (3.7% versus 1.8%), the scold a disrespectful child item First, we examined the correlations between the new scale (5.8% versus 2.3%, P< 0.01), and the do something about and the health, mobility and loneliness measures, comparing a child skipping school item (6.3% versus 3.1%, P< 0.01). the results to those from identical analyses using the original In the new scale, these items were the young people know CE scale. Second, we examined whether the new scale can older people item (7.0% versus 3.7%, P< 0.01) and the older predict well-being more accurately in certain demographic people socialize with young adults item (6.0% versus 3.7%, subgroups by comparing the fit statistics of regressions P< 0.05). estimated in those subgroups. 3.3. New Collective Efficacy Scale: Dimensionality, Reliability, 3. Results Criterion and Convergent Validity. The results from the principal component analysis suggested that the eight items 3.1. New Collective Efficacy Scale: Instrument Acceptability. in the new CE scale represented a single latent factor, since We first examined percentage missing for each of the items only one component had an eigenvalue greater than one. The in the original and new CE scales. The items most likely internal consistency reliability of the scale, as measured by to be missing in the original CE scale were “do something Cronbach’s alpha, was 0.81. It was slightly higher for those about kids skipping school” (4.4%) and “scold child for over 77 and men (0.82 for both groups) and slightly lower for showing adult disrespect” (3.7%). The items most likely to those 65–69 and women (0.79 and 0.80, resp.). The internal be missing in the new CE scale were “younger people know consistency reliability of the theoretically defined subscales older people” (5%) and “older people socialize with younger was 0.65 (informal social control) and 0.72 (social cohesion). adults” (4.6%). The percentage missing one or more item To examine the criterion validity of the new scale, from the original CE scale was 10.9%, while the percentage we calculated its correlation with the old CE scale. The missing one or more item from the new CE scale was 13.0%. correlation of the scales with each other was 0.81, the No clear pattern emerged of one scale showing more missing correlation of the theoretically defined old and new social than the other. cohesion subscales was 0.68, and the correlation of the theoretically defined old and new informal social control 3.2. New Collective Efficacy Scale: Differential Nonresponse. subscales was 0.72. The results of the differential nonresponse analysis are shown We next tested for convergent and divergent validity by in Table 2. Consistent with previous research, respondents in examining the association of the new CE scale with the the middle and oldest age categories were more likely than two other NOAH measures of neighborhood quality, neigh- those in the youngest age category to be missing at least borhood disorder and neighborhood exchange (Table 3). one item from both the original and older adult CE scales Neighborhood exchange was more highly correlated with [22]. Theextentofthisdifferential nonresponse by age was the new CE scale than it was with the original scale, 6 Journal of Aging Research Table 2: Percent missing each collective efficacy xcale item, by age group. Young old Middle old Oldest old a b b 65–74 75–84 85–95 N = 60% of the N = 31% of the N = 9% of the sample sample sample Original collective efficacy scale items Close knit neighborhood 0.9 0.1 0.3 ∗∗ ∗∗ Trustworthy neighbors 1.4 3.2+ 7.9 Neighbors help 1.3 1.3 2.4 Fire station 1.8 3.4+ 4.7 ∗∗ ∗ ∗∗ Scold a disrespectful child 2.4 4.9 9.4 Do something about children spraying graffiti 1.7 1.9 7.1 ∗∗ ∗ Do something about children skipping school 3.1 5.5+ 9.4 Break up a fight 0.7+ 1.3 4.7 ∗∗∗ ∗∗ ∗∗ Missing one or more item from the original CE scale 8.3 13.6 19.5 New collective efficacy scale items Respect for old people 1.0 1.2 2.4 Groceries when sick 2.0 2.1 2.4 ∗∗ ∗ Young people know older people 3.7 5.9+ 11.0 ∗ ∗ Older people socialize with young adults 3.7 5.1 9.4 Neighbors intervene to protect threatened elder 1.7 1.1 6.3 Neighbors help fix issue affecting older adults 1.5 1.7 5.5+ Neighbors check on elders during heat wave 2.2 2.1 3.1 Neighbors shovel snow 1.7 2.5 0.8 ∗∗∗ ∗∗ Missing one or more item from the new CE scale 10.9 14.4+ 21.9 a ∗∗ ∗ % missing differs from % missing among middle/oldest old, P< 0.01 P< 0.05 + P< 0.1. ∗∗ ∗ missing differs from % missing among young old, P< 0.01 P< 0.05 + P< 0.1. while neighborhood disorder was more highly (negatively) these models estimated for the male and female subsamples, correlated with the original CE scale than the new CE scale. the married and unmarried subsamples, each of the age Also, disorder was more highly (negatively) correlated with subgroups, and the sub-samples with and without children the new theoretically defined CE subscale of informal control in their households (not shown). There were no differences than with the new theoretically defined CE subscale of social in fit. cohesion, while the reverse was true for exchange. 4. Discussion 3.4. New Collective Efficacy Scale: Construct Validity. In the second part of the analysis, we examined the construct The aim of this paper was to describe the development validity of the new scale by comparing its correlation with and examine the properties of a new theory-based measure various health measures with similar correlations between of CE that incorporates the perspectives of older residents. the original scale and those measures. The correlations One motivation for creating a new scale customized for a between the original and the new CE scales and the self- particular subpopulation is that the increased instrument rated health, mobility, and loneliness measures are shown in acceptability and salience of the customized items may Table 4. The correlation between self-rated health and CE, increase the response rate for the scale items. The results from whether measured with the original or the new scale, was our examination of the percentage missing the individual −0.17 (P< 0.0001). The correlation between mobility and items, as well as percentage missing one or more items from CE, whether measured with the original or the new scale, was the old versus the new CE scales, did not show such effects. 0.07 (P< 0.05). The correlations between loneliness and the Neither at the individual item level, nor at the scale level, did original and new CE scales differed. The correlation with the it appear that one scale is less or more likely to have missing original scale was −0.16 (P< 0.0001) while the correlation values. with the new scale was −0.20 (P< 0.0001). However, another motivation for creating a new scale Lastly, we regressed each of these three measures on customized for a particular subpopulation is that the the two CE measures one at a time and compared the fit increased salience of the customized items may decrease statistics. The fit of the models, as measured by the r- or eliminate differential nonresponse by the variables that squared statistic, was not better for one scale than for the define the subpopulation. The results from our analysis other (not shown). We also compared the fit statistics of suggest such an effect in our new CE scale. The likelihood Journal of Aging Research 7 Table 3: Correlations of collective efficacy scales and subscales with other neighborhood scales. New CE scale— New CE scale—social Original CE scale New CE scale informal social cohesion subscale control subscale Disorder −0.39 −0.33 −0.28 −0.33 Exchange 0.43 0.53 0.52 0.41 All correlations are significant at P< 0.0001, except that between disorder and exchange, which is significant at P< 0.01. Table 4: Correlations of collective efficacy scales with health and as well as in other urban areas. The other limitations of well-being. this study relate to its survey modality. Phone surveys are subject to sampling and response bias, the first exacerbated Original CE scale New CE scale by increased use of call screening technology and the rapid ∗∗∗ ∗∗∗ Self-reported health −0.17 −0.17 growth of telephone marketing [64, 67]. However, the risk ∗ ∗ Mobility 0.07 0.07 of social desirability bias inherent in the telephone survey ∗∗∗ ∗∗∗ Loneliness −0.16 −0.20 administration modality should be relatively minor given the ∗∗∗ ∗∗ ∗ P< 0.001 P< 0.01 P< 0.05 + P< 0.1. non-personal and therefore non-sensitive nature of most of the questions asked [68, 69]. Also, sampling or response bias due to hearing impairment is likely to be less significant than such bias due to vision and fine motor impairment in studies of missing was greater among the oldest old than the rest of using self-administered questionnaires [22, 70]. the sample for five of the eight items in the original scale, but only three of the eight items in the new scale. The new scale is therefore better suited for use in older populations, 5. Conclusions because nonresponse will be less likely to be a function of age. This pattern was also in line with our hypothesis The importance of neighborhood context, and in particular that items related to children would be less relevant and its potential ability to modify adverse health event risk, therefore harder to answer for older adults. Of the items with prevalence, and severity is being increasingly recognized. differential nonresponse, three of the five from the original For example, the original measure of CE has just recently scale and one of the three from the new older adult scale been added to the PhenX toolkit, a set of consensus concerned young people. measures intended to standardize genetic and epidemio- The results of our dimensionality and reliability analysis logical research (http://www.phenxtoolkit.org/-February 4 suggest that the scale measures one factor, with good re- 2011, Version 4.2). While the benefits to using standard liability. It has reasonable criterion validity, in that it was measures include comparability across studies and the closely correlated with the original CE scale and the other two potential to easily combine results in meta-analyses, there neighborhood scales, neighborhood exchange and disorder. are also benefits to using measures customized to particular It was perhaps to be expected that neighborhood exchange populations. The new measure of CE presented in this study would be more highly correlated with the new CE scale than has reliability and validity equivalent to that of the existing with the original scale, while neighborhood disorder would measure but benefits from a stronger gerontology-related be more highly (negatively) correlated with the original CE theoretical grounding and reduced likelihood of age-related scale than with the new CE scale, since the original CE scale differential nonresponse. has an equal number of social cohesion and informal social The two measures exhibited both high correlation and control items, while the new CE scale has 5 social cohesion comparable effects on the health outcomes considered. These items but only 3 informal social control items. This difference findings raise the larger question of the extent to which in the number of items measuring each part of CE may also measures of distinct forms of CE are capturing an underlying explain why disorder was more highly (negatively) correlated latent neighborhood capacity. with the new theoretically defined CE subscale of informal CE theory underscores the goal-directed nature of mobi- control than with the new theoretically defined CE subscale lization capacity, suggesting that a given neighborhood may of social cohesion, while the reverse was true for exchange. have differing levels of CE depending upon the specific The results of the construct validity analysis suggest that challenge under consideration. In this view, communities the new CE scale predicts health and mobility just as well as with high levels of CE with respect to the social control of does the original CE scale and may predict loneliness slightly public space may or may not share a comparable willingness better—an important finding given recent literature on the to maintain and promote the health and well-being of local prevalence and salience of loneliness among older adults. older adults. Yet, in practice, evidence suggests that high levels of CE 4.1. Limitations. The primary limitation of this study is across multiple objectives are likely to cluster together in the its geographic specificity. Because it is limited to a single same communities. This may be due to the shared origins city, replication studies will need to examine the measure’s of distinct forms of CE in the structural (e.g., economic psychometric properties in rural and suburban contexts, advantage, residential stability) and social (e.g., informal 8 Journal of Aging Research network density, voluntary organization participation) con- Aging at the National Institutes of Health (Grant no. R01 ditions of urban neighborhoods. Cohesive neighborhoods AG022488-01 to K.A.Cagney). with high levels of mutual trust and solidarity may provide the conditions under which generalized prosocial norms References emerge, benefiting a broad base of residential constituencies. Although the current analysis offers evidence consistent [1] C. Cannuscio, J. Block, and I. Kawachi, “Social capital and with the notion of a generalized collective capacity, we do successful aging: the role of senior housing,” Annals of Internal not view these results as grounds upon which we reject the Medicine, vol. 139, no. 5, pp. 395–399, 2003. [2] J. H. Oh, “Social bonds and the migration intentions of hypothesis that CE exhibits distinct dimensions. First, CE elderly urban residents: the mediating effects of residential with respect to the social control of public space may have satisfaction,” Population Research and Policy Review, vol. 22, indirect benefits for older adults. Fear and the associated no. 2, pp. 127–146, 2003. withdrawal from neighborhood environments may have [3] World Health Organization, Global Age-Friendy Cities: A important health implications for older adults and may be Guide, WHO Press, Geneva, Switzerland, 2007. strongly related to local norms regarding the social control [4] C. R. Browning and K. A. Cagney, “Neighborhood structural of children (a significant component of the original CE disadvantage, collective efficacy, and self-rated physical health scale). Thus it may be the case that the original CE operates, in an urban setting,” Journal of Health and Social Behavior, vol. 43, no. 4, pp. 383–399, 2002. in part, indirectly to produce comparable associations with [5] K. A. Cagney and C. R. Browning, “Exploring neighborhood- the health outcomes considered. Second, research on the level variation in asthma and other respiratory diseases: dynamics of neighborhood collective capacities is incipient. the contribution of neighborhood social context,” Journal of Analyses of the association and impact of CE measures General Internal Medicine, vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 229–236, 2004. focused on other shared goals (e.g., expectations regarding [6] I. Kawachi and L. F. Berkman, “Social cohesion, social capital, influence of local institutions) may reveal different patterns, and health,” in Social Epidemiology,L.F.Berkman andI. warranting more extensive research. Kawachi, Eds., Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, 2000. In the case of older adult’s perceptions of their commu- [7] A. Nazmi, A. Diez Roux, N. Ranjit, T. E. Seeman, and N. S. Jenny, “Cross-sectional and longitudinal associations nities’ association with the factors that predict whether and of neighborhood characteristics with inflammatory markers: how older adults age in place, the strength and mechanisms findings from the multi-ethnic study of atherosclerosis,” are still not fully understood. For example, it may be that Health and Place, vol. 16, no. 6, pp. 1104–1112, 2010. even before health deteriorates, specific expectations that [8] J.L.Balfour andG.J.Kaplan, “Neighborhood environment neighbors will provide help when needed and will take steps and loss of physical function in older adults: evidence from the to maintain the safety of the common areas are the particular Alameda County Study,” American Journal of Epidemiology, perceptions that predict intentions to stay. Similarly, it may vol. 155, no. 6, pp. 507–515, 2002. be that when health and functionality deteriorate, the specific [9] C. E. Ross, “Walking, exercising, and smoking: does neighbor- perception that neighbors are assuming the caretaking hood matter?” Social Science and Medicine, vol. 51, no. 2, pp. 265–274, 2000. role usually shouldered by family may be the particular [10] M. Wen and N. A. Christakis, “Neighborhood effects on post- perception that forestalls a move. This new measure of CE hospitalization mortality: a population-based cohort study of can be used to test these hypothesized pathways, as well as the elderly in Chicago,” Health Services Research, vol. 40, no. 4, the others discussed in the introduction (Section 1), that may pp. 1108–1127, 2005. link CE to neighborhood satisfaction, health, and the other [11] E. Litwak and C. F. Longino, “Migration patterns among the factors that predict intention to move and actual migration. elderly: a developmental perspective,” Gerontologist, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 266–272, 1987. [12] D. E. Bradley, “Litwak and Longino’s developmental model of Author’s Contribution later-life migration: evidence from the American community survey, 2005–2007,” Journal of Applied Gerontology, vol. 30, no. C. R. Browning and K. A. Cagney planned the study and 2, pp. 141–158, 2011. designed the instrument. A. M. Galinsky performed the [13] J. F. Sergeant, D. J. Ekerdt, and R. K. Chapin, “Older adults’ statistical analysis and wrote the paper. K. A. Cagney super- expectations to move: do they predict actual community- vised the data analysis. K. A. Cagney and C. R. Browning based or nursing facility moves within 2 years?” Journal of Aging and Health, vol. 22, no. 7, pp. 1029–1053, 2010. contributed to the final draft. [14] K. J. Stoeckel and F. Porell, “Do older adults anticipate relocat- ing? The relationship between housing relocation expectations and falls,” Journal of Applied Gerontology,vol. 29, no.2,pp. Acknowledgments 231–250, 2010. [15] F. Earls and S. L. Buka, “Project on human development in The authors are grateful to Alma Kuby, who managed the chicago neighborhoods,” Technical Report, National Institute project, Erin Wargo, who assisted in data collection tasks, of Justice, Rockville, Md, USA, 1997. Colm O’Muircheartaigh and Ned English, who conducted [16] M. P. Lawton, “The Philadelphia geriatric center morale scale: the project’s sample design and management, and Martha a revision,” Journals of Gerontology, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 85–89, Van Haitsma and Kelly Daley, who supervised and managed the telephone interviewing. They thank Robert Sampson for [17] B. L. Neugarten, R. J. Havighurst, and S. S. Tobin, “The meas- consultation on the development of the measures. This work urement of life satisfaction,” Journals of Gerontology, vol. 16, was supported by a grant from the National Institute on pp. 134–143, 1961. Journal of Aging Research 9 [18] D. L. Segal, A. June, M. Payne, F. L. Coolidge, and B. Yochim, [35] D. Dannefer, “Cumulative advantage/disadvantage and the life “Development and initial validation of a self-report as- course: cross-fertilizing age and social science theory,” Journals sessment tool for anxiety among older adults: the Geriatric of Gerontology B, vol. 58, supplement 6, pp. S327–S337, 2003. Anxiety Scale,” Journal of Anxiety Disorders,vol. 24, no.7,pp. [36] G. H. Elder, M. K. Johnson, and R. Crosnoe, “The emergence 709–714, 2010. and development of life course theory,” in Handbook of the Life Course,J.T.Mortimerand M. J. Shanahan,Eds., pp.3–22, [19] J. A. Yesavage,T.L.Brink,T.L.Roseetal., “Development Springer, New York, NY, USA, 2004. and validation of a geriatric depression screening scale: a [37] S. A. Robert, K. A. Cagney, and M. Weden, “A life course ap- preliminary report,” Journal of Psychiatric Research, vol. 17, no. proach to the study of neighborhoods and health,” in Hand- 1, pp. 37–49, 1983. book of Medical Sociology, C. Bird, P. Conrad, and A. M. [20] L. Halvorsrud and M. Kalfoss, “The conceptualization and Fremont, Eds., Vanderbilt University Press, Nashville, Tenn, measurement of quality of life in older adults: a review USA, 2010. of empirical studies published during 1994–2006,” European [38] T. L. Gruenewald, T. E. Seeman, A. S. Karlamangla, and C. A. Journal of Ageing, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 229–246, 2007. Sarkisian, “Allostatic load and frailty in older adults,” Journal [21] R. Fitzpatrick, C. Davey, M. J. Buxton, and D. R. Jones, “Evalu- of the American Geriatrics Society, vol. 57, no. 9, pp. 1525– ating patient-based outcome measures for use in clinical trials: 1531, 2009. a review,” Health Technology Assessment, vol. 2, no. 14, 1998. [39] C. O. Weiss, “Frailty and chronic diseases in older adults,” [22] C. A. McHorney, “Measuring and monitoring general health Clinics in Geriatric Medicine, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 39–52, 2011. status in elderly persons: practical and methodological issues [40] R. O. Hansson and B. N. Carpenter, Relationships in Old Age: in using the SF-36 health survey,” Gerontologist, vol. 36, no. 5, Coping with the Challenge of Transition, Guilford Press, New pp. 571–583, 1996. York, NY, USA, 1994. [23] R. J. Sampson, S. W. Raudenbush, and F. Earls, “Neigh- [41] J. E. Lansford, A. M. Sherman, and T. C. Antonucci, “Satisfac- borhoods and violent crime: a multilevel study of collective tion with social networks: an examination of socioemotional efficacy,” Science, vol. 277, no. 5328, pp. 918–924, 1997. selectivity theory across cohorts,” Psychology and Aging, vol. [24] S. W. Raudenbush and R. J. Sampson, “Ecometrics: toward a 13, no. 4, pp. 544–552, 1998. science of assessing ecological settings, with application to the [42] K. E. Campbell and B. A. Lee, “Sources of personal neighbor systematic social observation of neighborhoods,” Sociological networks: social integration, need, or time?” Social Forces, vol. Methodology, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 1–41, 1999. 70, pp. 77–100, 1992. [25] K. A. Cagney,T.A.Glass, K. A. Skarupski,L.L.Barnes, B. [43] M. H. Cantor, “Life space and the social support system of the S. Schwartz, and C. F. Mendes de Leon, “Neighborhood-level inner city elderly of New York,” Gerontologist, vol. 15, no. 1, cohesion and disorder: measurement and validation in two pp. 23–27, 1975. older adult urban populations,” Journals of Gerontology B, vol. [44] R. A. R. Gurung, S. E. Taylor, and T. E. Seeman, “Accounting 64, no. 3, pp. 415–424, 2009. for changes in social support among married older adults: [26] D. T. Lau, K. G. Scandrett, M. Jarzebowski, K. Holman, and insights from the MacArthur studies of successful aging,” L. Emanuel, “Health-related safety: a framework to address Psychology and Aging, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 487–496, 2003. barriers to aging in place,” Gerontologist, vol. 47, no. 6, pp. [45] M. W. Riley and J. W. Riley, “Age integration: conceptual and 830–837, 2007. historical background,” Gerontologist, vol. 40, no. 3, pp. 266– 270, 2000. [27] E. H. Erikson and J. M. Erikson, The Life Cycle Completed, [46] G. O. Hagestad, “Towards a society for all ages: new thinking, Norton, New York, NY, USA, 1997. new language, new conversations,” United Nations Bulletin on [28] C. D. Ryff, “Psychological well-being in adult life,” Current Aging, no. 2-3, 1998. Directions in Psychological Science, vol. 4, pp. 99–104, 1995. [47] G. O. Hagestad and D. Dannefer, “Concepts and theories of [29] C.D. Ryff, “Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations aging: beyond microfication in social science approaches,” in on the meaning of psychological well-being,” JournalofPer- Handbook of Aging and the Social Sciences,R.H.Binstock and sonality and Social Psychology, vol. 57, no. 6, pp. 1069–1081, L. K. George, Eds., pp. 3–21, Academic Press, New York, NY, USA, 5th edition, 2001. [30] L. P. Fried, C. M. Tangen, J. Walston et al., “Frailty in older [48] P. Uhlenberg, “Integration of old and young,” Gerontologist, adults: evidence for a phenotype,” Journals of Gerontology, vol. vol. 40, no. 3, pp. 276–279, 2000. 56, no. 3, pp. M146–M156, 2001. [49] G. O. Hagestad and P. Uhlenberg, “The social separation of old [31] K. Erikson, “Reflections on generativity and society: a sociolo- andyoung:aroot of ageism,” Journal of Social Issues, vol. 61, gist’s perspective,” in The Generative Society: Caring for Future no. 2, pp. 343–360, 2005. Generations,E.deSt. Aubin, D. P. McAdams, andT.Kim,Eds., [50] E. Janse, “Processing of fast speech by elderly listeners,” Journal pp. 51–61, American Psychological Association, Washington, of the Acoustical Society of America, vol. 125, no. 4, pp. 2361– DC, USA, 2004. 2373, 2009. [32] E. Pfeiffer, “Psychopathology and social pathology,” in Hand- [51] X. Z. Liu and D. Yan, “Ageing and hearing loss,” Journal of book of the Psychology of Aging, J. E. Birren and K. W. Schaie, Pathology, vol. 211, no. 2, pp. 188–197, 2007. Eds., pp. 650–671, Academic Press, New York, NY, USA, 1977. [52] N. Wild-Wall and M. Falkenstein, “Age-dependent impair- [33] C. D. Ryff, “Beyond Ponce de Leon and life satisfaction: new ment of auditory processing under spatially focused and directions in quest of successful ageing,” International Journal divided attention: an electrophysiological study,” Biological of Behavioral Development, vol. 12, p. 55, 1989. Psychology, vol. 83, no. 1, pp. 27–36, 2010. [34] B. Cornwell, L. P. Schumm, E. O. Laumann, and J. Graber, [53] M. W. Riley and J. W. Riley, “Age integration and the lives of “Social networks in the nshap study: rationale, measurement, older people,” Gerontologist, vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 110–115, 1994. and preliminary findings,” Journals of Gerontology B, vol. 64, [54] M. W. Riley, “Successful aging,” The Gerontologist, vol. 38, no. no. 1, pp. I47–I55, 2009. 2, p. 151, 1998. 10 Journal of Aging Research [55] T. L. Gruenewald, A. S. Karlamangla, G. A. Greendale, B. H. Singer, and T. E. Seeman, “Increased mortality risk in older adults with persistently low or declining feelings of usefulness to others,” Journal of Aging and Health, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 398– 425, 2009. [56] B. Levy and M. R. Banaji, “Implicit ageism,” in Ageism: Stereotyping and Prejudice Against Older Persons,T.Nelson, Ed., pp. 49–75, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass, USA, 2002. [57] P. F. Adams, G. E. Hendershot, and M. A. Marano, “Current estimates from the national health interview survey, United States, 1996,” Tech. Rep. 200, National Center for Health Statistics, Hyattsville, Md, USA, 1999. [58] L. P. Fried, L. Ferrucci, J. Darer, J. D. Williamson, and G. Anderson, “Untangling the concepts of disability, frailty, and comorbidity: implications for improved targeting and care,” Journals of Gerontology, vol. 59, no. 3, pp. 255–263, 2004. [59] L. P. Fried, C. M. Tangen, J. Walston et al., “Frailty in older adults: evidence for a phenotype,” Journals of Gerontology, vol. 56, no. 3, pp. M146–M156, 2001. [60] L. Ferrucci,J.M.Guralnik,S.Studenski,L.P.Fried,G.B. Cutler, and J. D. Walston, “Designing randomized, controlled trials aimed at preventing or delaying functional decline and disability in frail, older persons: a consensus report,” Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, vol. 52, no. 4, pp. 625–634, [61] C. R. Clark, I. Kawachi, L. Ryan, K. Ertel, M. E. Fay, and L. F. Berkman, “Perceived neighborhood safety and incident mobility disability among elders: the hazards of poverty,” BMC Public Health, vol. 9, article 162, 2009. [62] J. W. Reich, A. J. Zautra, and J. Hill, “Activity, event transac- tions, and quality of life in older adults,” Psychology and Aging, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 116–124, 1987. [63] E. Wargo, N. English, and A. Kuby, NOAH—Neighborhood, Organization, Aging and Health, NORC/University of Chicago, Chicago, Ill, USA, 2008. [64] R. Curtin, S. Presser, and E. Singer, “Changes in telephone survey nonresponse over the past quarter century,” Public Opinion Quarterly, vol. 69, no. 1, pp. 87–98, 2005. [65] M. Tonry, L. E. Ohlin, and D. P. Farrington, “Human de- velopment and criminal behavior: new ways of advancing knowledge,” in Research in Criminology,A.Blumstein andD. P. Farrington, Eds., Springer, New York, NY, USA, 1991. [66] M. E. Hughes,L.J.Waite,L.C.Hawkley,and J. T. Cacioppo, “A short scale for measuring loneliness in large surveys: results from two population-based studies,” Research on Aging, vol. 26, no. 6, pp. 655–672, 2004. [67] A. M. Kempf and P. L. Remington, “New challenges for telephone survey research in the twenty-first century,” Annual Review of Public Health, vol. 28, pp. 113–126, 2007. [68] A. L. Holbrook, M. C. Green, and J. A. Krosnick, “Telephone versus face-to-face interviewing of national probability sam- ples with long questionnaires: comparisons of respondent sat- isficing and social desirability response bias,” Public Opinion Quarterly, vol. 67, no. 1, pp. 79–125, 2003. [69] A. R. Herzog and W. L. Rodgers, “Interviewing older adults: mode comparison using data from a face-to-face survey and a telephone resurvey,” Public Opinion Quarterly,vol. 52, no.1, pp. 84–99, 1988. [70] D. O. Kaldenberg, H. F. Koenig, and B. W. Becker, “Mail survey response rate patterns in a population of the elderly: does response deteriorate with age?” Public Opinion Quarterly, vol. 58, no. 1, pp. 68–76, 1994. MEDIATORS of INFLAMMATION The Scientific Gastroenterology Journal of World Journal Research and Practice Diabetes Research Disease Markers Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 International Journal of Journal of Immunology Research Endocrinology Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 Submit your manuscripts at http://www.hindawi.com BioMed PPAR Research Research International Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 Journal of Obesity Evidence-Based Journal of Journal of Stem Cells Complementary and Ophthalmology International Alternative Medicine Oncology Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 Parkinson’s Disease Computational and Behavioural Mathematical Methods AIDS Oxidative Medicine and in Medicine Research and Treatment Cellular Longevity Neurology Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Journal of Aging Research Hindawi Publishing Corporation

Is Collective Efficacy Age Graded? The Development and Evaluation of a New Measure of Collective Efficacy for Older Adults

Loading next page...
 
/lp/hindawi-publishing-corporation/is-collective-efficacy-age-graded-the-development-and-evaluation-of-a-4G20AMSl6X
Publisher
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
Copyright
Copyright © 2012 Adena M. Galinsky et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
ISSN
2090-2204
eISSN
2090-2212
DOI
10.1155/2012/360254
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Hindawi Publishing Corporation Journal of Aging Research Volume 2012, Article ID 360254, 10 pages doi:10.1155/2012/360254 Research Article Is Collective Efficacy Age Graded? The Development and Evaluation of a New Measure of Collective Efficacy for Older Adults 1 2 3 Adena M. Galinsky, Kathleen A. Cagney, and Christopher R. Browning Center on the Demography and Economics of Aging, NORC and the University of Chicago, 1155 E. 60th Street, Chicago, IL 60637, USA Departments of Sociology and Health Studies, University of Chicago, 1155 E. 60th Street, Rm 238, Chicago, IL 60637, USA Department of Sociology, Ohio State University, 214 Townshend Hall, 1885 Neil Avenue Mall, Columbus, OH 43210, USA Correspondence should be addressed to Kathleen A. Cagney, k-cagney@uchicago.edu Received 16 May 2011; Revised 7 October 2011; Accepted 27 November 2011 Academic Editor: Lindy Clemson Copyright © 2012 Adena M. Galinsky et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Objectives. Community processes are key determinants of older adults’ ability to age in place, but existing scales measuring these constructs may not provide accurate, unbiased measurements among older adults because they were designed with the concerns of child-rearing respondents in mind. This study examines the properties of a new theory-based measure of collective efficacy (CE) that accounts for the perspectives of older residents. Methods. Data come from the population-based Chicago Neighborhood Organization, Aging and Health study (N = 1,151), which surveyed adults aged 65 to 95. Using descriptive statistics, correlations, and factor analysis, we explored the acceptability, reliability, and validity of the new measure. Results. Principal component analysis indicated that the new scale measures a single latent factor. It had good internal consistency reliability, was highly correlated with the original scale, and was similarly associated with neighborhood exchange and disorder, self-rated health, mobility, and loneliness. The new scale also showed less age-differentiated nonresponse compared to the original scale. Discussion. The older adult CE scale has reliability and validity equivalent to that of the existing measure but benefits from a more developed theoretical grounding and reduced likelihood of age-related differential nonresponse. 1. Introduction The perceptions and norms of behavior likely relevant to the three WHO factors fall under the rubric of a well- Evidence suggests that community processes are important developed sociological construct, collective efficacy. Collective to older adults’ ability to age in place [1, 2]. Of the eight fac- efficacy (CE) refers to perceptions and norms of two cate- tors identified in the World Health Organization’s report on gories of social processes that represent two kinds of com- age-friendly cities [3], three seem fundamentally dependent munity social resources: trust and connection, commonly on community processes. These three, Age-Friendly Outdoor referred to as social cohesion, and expectations for action, Spaces (WHO factor 1), Social Participation (WHO factor 4), commonly referred to as informal social control. Studies have and Respect and Social Inclusion (WHO factor 5) may all be shown the importance of CE for multiple aspects of well- supported by structural innovations and resource infusion, being among older adults [4–7]. In particular, CE has been but, in all likelihood, cannot be sustained without on- shown to play a role in enhancing older adults’ physical going community involvement. Community-level behavior health and neighborhood satisfaction, which may predict is important not only for the immediate results produced by their intentions to move and actual migration [2, 5, 8–14]. discrete actions and social exchange, but also for its role in Unfortunately, existing scales measuring this construct may shaping the perceptions and norms of behavior held by the not be ideal for use with older adults because they were community’s residents. 2 Journal of Aging Research designed with the concerns of child-rearing respondents in A range of theories from the aging and life course lit- mind [15]. For example, scale items that ask about ex- erature provide us with a framework for generating a set pectations of neighbor cooperation in monitoring children of cues for social cohesion and informal social control that may be less relevant to adults whose children are grown. would be particularly salient to older adults [27–33]. A key At the same time, the priorities of older adults are not focus of later life is to develop mechanisms to adapt to new necessarily reflected in these existing scales. challenges, including frailty and morbidity and decreased At the individual level, a number of scales measuring scope and density of social networks [30, 32, 34–37]. As such constructs as anxiety and life satisfaction have been applied to the CE framework, these perspectives suggest developed based on theory and evidence regarding the that perceptions of neighbors’ willingness to assist older distinctiveness of older adults’ experiences (e.g., [16–19]). adults with tasks, and perceptions of neighborhood norms These and similar scales are able to measure the constructs related to regulating behavior with the goal of enhancing of interest among older adults more accurately and with neighborhood safety and traversability, will be particularly less response bias because they take into account the unique important. At the same time, older adults are not only concerns, challenges, and goals of adults in the later decades concerned with compensating for losses and coping with of their lives [20]. For example, scales that feature items that challenges. Generativity is also a key component of later are more salient to older adults show increased instrument life, defined as helping the next generation by, for instance, acceptability in the form of higher response rates and lower passing on wisdom and thereby leaving a legacy [27–29]. differential nonresponse [21]. Such scales, by providing Within the CE framework, this perspective incorporates the more easily recognized and comprehended items, also reduce notion that intergenerational exchange may contribute to a response burden [22]. By following the same principles, prosocial orientation and a mutual respect for community scales measuring neighborhood social processes can be contributions across the life course. designed such that they produce more accurate measurement In the remainder of this section, we discuss the research among older adults. literature underlying our selection of the four specific types In this study we describe and test a new measure of of cues for CE that we believe would be particularly salient CE. This measure was developed specifically for use in to older adults. The two types of social cohesion cues that we older populations, taking into account the unique ways that hypothesize to be particularly salient to older adults, based people of their age and cohort interpret and respond to on theory in urban sociology and literature on aging, are common environmental cues, and the particular cues that we those that relate to active caretaking of vulnerable residents hypothesized would be uniquely important to older adults. and age integration/lack of ageism. The two types of informal In the first part of this paper, we explain the theoretical social control cues that we hypothesize to be particularly framework guiding our identification of environmental cues salient to older adults, based on the theory and literature on for CE likely to be salient to older adults. In the second part of aging, are those that relate to minimizing social incivility and the paper, we test the new measure’s instrument acceptability, maximizing accessibility. dimensionality, reliability, and criterion validity in an older Older adults may be particularly attuned to displays of adult population. In the third part of the paper, we appraise solidarity in the form of social cohesion cues related to active the new measure’s construct validity by examining its caring and caretaking. Frailty and decreased mobility make association with individual health-related outcomes. Our some tasks that are easy in middle age significantly more aim was to construct a scale that can be used in research difficult in later life [38, 39]. Simultaneously, many older on neighborhood social processes, the health of older adults, adults experience a decrease in the scope and density of their and other factors that relate to aging in place. social networks [40, 41]. As a result of this combination of Our theoretical framework combines CE theory with a changes, older adults are often more reliant on assistance consideration of the particular challenges and opportunities from community members [42, 43]. Perceptions of the avail- of the older adult life stage. As alluded to above, CE theory ability of neighbor assistance may be particularly important attempts to explain the association between neighborhood to the well-being of older women compared to older men structural factors, social processes, and individual-level out- and older single men compared to older married men, who comes by positing that the neighborhood processes of social are unlikely and unable, respectively, to rely on their spouses cohesion and informal social control mediate the relation- for help [44]. Older adults who believe that their neighbors ship between the structural factors and individual outcomes will provide active caretaking may be more confident about [23, 24]. For example, compositional socioeconomic status their ability to stay in their homes. Our new measure of CE may impact social cohesion, which in turn affects self-rated includes two items designed to capture the tendency toward health, asthma rates, and inflammatory marker levels by active caretaking facet of the social cohesion construct. reducing stress and fear [4–7, 25]. CE is therefore likely Older adults may also be particularly attuned to, and able to be a part of the societal system that supports healthy to benefit substantially from, social cohesions cues related living, safeguards individuals against adverse health events, to age integration and lack of ageism. Aging societies have and thereby enables aging in place [26]. CE is related to, experienced an increase in social separation of age groups, but distinct from, social network interaction and exchange even as age heterogeneity within most neighborhoods has and social and physical disorder. The first is concerned with increased [45–48]. One reason for the persistence of social norms and expectations, while the second and third refer to segregation by age despite decreased logistical barriers to actual behavior and conditions. socializing across age boundaries may be ageism, which may Journal of Aging Research 3 interfere with communication across agelines [49]. Another venturing outside, and (2) it may relate to actual improved factor impeding such communication is the decrease in conditions [8, 61, 62]. Maintenance of the environment can information processing speed and loss of hearing that com- in turn prevent the adverse health events that constitute monly occurs at older ages [50–52]. These factors combine barriers to aging in place [13, 14, 26]. Our new measure of to create a situation in which sustained effort is required for CE includes two items designed to capture the expectations cross-generational socializing. for actions that maximize accessibility, a component of the Perceptions of opportunities for cross-generational inter- informal social control construct. actions are relevant to older adults priorities, and ability to age in place, for a number of reasons. Communities in which 2. Methods older and younger people associate may be communities in 2.1. Data and Sample. We used data from the Chicago which there are fewer age-based misunderstandings, biases, Neighborhood, Organization, Aging and Health study fears, and resentments, and greater empathy on the part of (NOAH). This study surveyed 1,500 adults aged 65 and over younger people for the challenges that come with later life living in 80 selected Chicago neighborhood clusters. Each [45, 48, 49, 53]. Older adults who perceive their communities cluster was defined by two to three census tracts consisting as age integrated may therefore feel safer venturing outside to of approximately 4,000 housing units. The sample frame participate in community life, because they would have less consisted of all households in the city of Chicago containing reason to fear and more reason to feel connected to a wider at least one member 65 years of age or older. The weighted range of their neighbors. Expectations of communication response rate for households with a phone number was across age lines also encompass expectations for the ability to 55.3% while the rate for those households for which a phone potentially pass on wisdom, neighborhood history, or prac- number could not be identified was 12.4%. The overall ticaladviceand thereby feel andbeuseful[54]. Such oppor- weighted response rate for the survey was 44.3%, a good rate tunities for generativity are likely to be crucial to neigh- for a telephone interview by contemporary standards [63, borhood satisfaction; being able to fill this social role has 64]. Interviews were conducted over the phone in English been associated with lower mortality [55]. Our new meas- and Spanish between August 2006 and September 2007. The ure of CE includes three items designed to capture the age NOAH study was approved by the institutional review boards integration facet of the social cohesion construct. of both NORC and the Division of Biological Sciences at Regarding the domain of informal social control, we the University of Chicago. All participants provided verbal expect that older adults pay increased attention to the consent. community’s expectations for behaviors that minimize social The sample consisted of the 76.7% of the 1,507 respon- incivility, as a result of reverse ageism (prejudice of older dents with complete demographic, health, and community people against younger people), the increase in frailty that process data (N = 1, 151). Descriptive statistics are shown in often accompanies advancing age [48, 56]. Older people with Table 1. The mean age was 73 (range 65–95), and 68% were impaired balance, reduced muscle strength, and limited gait female. Over two fifths (44%) were non-Hispanic White, speed may be more likely than spry younger adults to find over a third were Non-Hispanic Black (35.8%), and the rest the loud, unpredictable peregrinations of rowdy teenagers were Hispanic (14.9%) or Other (5%). About a third (32.6%) threatening [48]. Furthermore, as a result of reverse ageism, were married, and about a tenth (9.8%) lived with someone elderly residents may perceive even subdued teenagers as under the age of 18. About a quarter had less than 12 years of a threat [56]. Their perceptions of the neighborhood’s education, about another quarter had graduated from high expectations for protecting vulnerable residents from mali- school, and a little under half had some college or more. cious young people may be particularly important for older A little more than a tenth of the sample had lived in their residents’ willingness to venture outside on a regular basis neighborhood for less than 10 years, while a little less than and for their neighborhood satisfaction. Our new measure three quarters had lived in their neighborhood for more than of CE includes one item designed to capture the expectation 20 years. Those missing data, who were therefore excluded for actions that minimize social incivility, a component of the from the sample as described above, were more likely to informal social control construct. be White Non-Hispanic than to be any other race/ethnicity Lastly, increased frailty and disability may also increase combination. the salience of cues for informal social control in the form of expectations for behaviors that maximize accessibility. For many older adults, navigating their neighborhoods becomes 2.2. Measures of CE. The CE questions were presented to the more difficult as their mobility decreases and their vulnera- respondent in two blocks. The first block was introduced bility for adverse health outcomes resulting from interactions with the sentences, “Now I’m going to read some statements with environmental hazards increases [57–60]. Older frail about things that people in your neighborhood may or may adults may be more attuned to obstacles and hazards in not do. For each of these statements, please tell me whether the physical environment, particularly as those environments you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or become dilapidated [61]. Increased expectations for actions strongly disagree.” The second block was introduced with the aimed at improving the safety and integrity of the environ- sentence,“Foreachofthe following,pleasetellmeifitisvery ment may be related to increased likelihood of maintaining likely, somewhat likely, somewhat unlikely, or very unlikely and using physical abilities and competencies for two that people in your neighborhood would act in the following reasons: (1) it may be related to increased confidence about manner.” 4 Journal of Aging Research Table 1: Descriptive statistics. this neighborhood socialize with younger adults as well as people their own age. The answer options for each of these were strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, Age (years) and strongly disagree. The active caretaking facet of social 65–74 59.7 cohesion was measured with two items, one in each block: 75–84 31.4 your neighbors would shop for groceries for you, if you were 85–95 8.6 sick; people in your neighborhood would check on older or more vulnerable residents if there was a heat wave. The Sex answer options for the first item were the same as those Female 67.7 for the age integration items. The answer options for the Male 32.3 second item were very likely, somewhat likely, somewhat Race/ethnicity unlikely, and very unlikely. The maximizing accessibility White Non-Hispanic 44.0 facet of informal social control was measured with two Black Non-Hispanic 35.8 items in the second block: people in your neighborhood Hispanic 14.9 would help to keep the sidewalks and other public spaces Other 5.0 clear if there was a snowstorm; people in the neighborhood Married 32.6 would help to get the problem corrected, if there was a Live with child under age 18 9.8 problem in the neighborhood that affected older adults, like crumbling sidewalks or unsafe parks. The answer options Education, in years for both items ranged from very likely to very unlikely. <12 24.5 The minimizing social incivility facet of informal social 12 26.7 control was measured with a single item in the second block: >12 48.7 neighborhood residents would intervene if an older person Years in neighborhood in your neighborhood was being threatened by a group of <10 11.3 teenagers. The answer options for this item again ranged 10–19 16.8 from very likely to very unlikely. 20–29 12.6 30–39 19.2 2.3. Demographic and Health Measures. Sociodemographic 40+ 40.1 measures included age, race/ethnicity, and marital status. An indicator for the presence of a child under the age of 18 in the household of the respondent was constructed using the 2.2.1. Collective Efficacy—Original Scale Items. The original list generated by a household roster. Health was measured CE scale, composed of eight items, first appeared in the using a self-report measure that asked: overall, how would Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods you rate your health in the past 4 weeks: excellent, very good, [65]. In the NOAH survey, the items were administered good, fair, poor, or very poor? We treated self-rated health as alongside the new CE items. The following three items were an ordinal categorical variable, collapsing the categories poor in the first block: this is a close knit neighborhood; people and very poor into one, because less than 2% of the sample around here are willing to help their neighbors; people in answered “very poor”. A measure of mobility was constructed this neighborhood can be trusted. The next five items were in using two measures taken from the Health and Retirement the second block: your neighbors would break up a fight in Survey (2002) and two measures adapted from the California front of your house in which someone was being threatened Health and Interview Survey (CHIS). The resulting ordinal or beaten; your neighbors would do something about it if a variable had the following categories: has difficulty walking group of neighborhood children were skipping school and across a room, has difficulty walking one block, walks less hanging out on a street corner; your neighbors would do than 10 minutes or more each week, walks 10 minutes or something about it if some children were spray-painting more once or a few times each week, walks 10 minutes or graffiti on a local building; neighborhood residents would more daily, walks 10 minutes or more multiple times a day. organize to try to do something to keep the fire station open Loneliness was measured using Hughes et al. [66] three-item if because of budget cuts the fire station closest to your scale. It has a range of 0 to 3 and a mean of 1.4. home was going to be closed down by the city; people in your neighborhood would scold a child who was showing disrespect to an adult. 2.4. Neighborhood Process Measures. Besides CE, NOAH measured two other neighborhood processes. Neighborhood 2.2.2. Collective Efficacy—New Scale Items. The new CE disorder was measured with a four-item scale from the scale, composed of eight items, was created by two of the PHDCN and was introduced with the sentence, “I’m going authors. The age integration facet of social cohesion was to read a list of things that are problems in some neigh- measured with three items in the first block: people in your borhoods. For each, please tell me how much of a problem neighborhood treat older people in this neighborhood with it is in your neighborhood—a big problem, somewhat of a respect; younger adults and children generally know who problem, or not a problem.” The four items asked about litter, the older people in the neighborhood are; older people in graffiti, drug use and sale, and public drinking. The scale was Journal of Aging Research 5 reliable in this sample (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.74) and had a not equal between scales, however. Those in the oldest age range of 1 to 3, with a mean of 1.54. Neighborhood exchange category were more likely to be missing five of the eight items was measured with a four-item scale from the PHDCN and in the old CE scale: the trustworthy neighbors item (7.9% was introduced with the sentence, “Now I am going to versus 1.4%, P< 0.01), the scold a disrespectful child item ask about some things you might do with people in your (9.4% versus 2.4%, P< 0.01), the graffiti item (7.1% versus neighborhood. For each, please tell me if it happens often, 1.7%, P< 0.05), the skipping school item (9.4% versus 3.1%, sometimes, rarely or never.” The four items asked about P< 0.05), and the break up a fight item (4.7% versus 0.7%, doing favors, watching over homes of absent neighbors, P< 0.05). In comparison, those in the oldest age category asking for advice, and visiting. The scale was reliable in this were only more likely to be missing three of the eight items in sample (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.75) and had a range of 1 to 4, the new CE scale: the young people know older people item with a mean of 2.8. (11.0% versus 3.7%, P< 0.05), the older people socialize with young adults item (9.4% versus 3.7%,P< 0.05), and the neighbors intervene to protect threatened elder item (6.3% 2.5. Analysis. In the first section of the analysis, the prop- versus 1.7%, P< 0.05). Those in the middle age category erties of the new CE scale were examined. Instrument ac- did not differ from those in the youngest age category in ceptability and item salience were examined by comparing their likelihood of missing any of the items in the new scale response rates and differential nonresponse for each item but did differ in their likelihood of missing one item in in the original and new CE scales. Next, the new scale the original scale: the scold a disrespectful child item (4.9% was examined for dimensionality using principal component versus 2.4%, P< 0.05). Because such a small percentage of analysis. Because only one factor was identified, the next step the respondents were in the oldest age category (9%), we was to estimate internal consistency reliability by calculating recalculated these percentages comparing the youngest old Cronbach’s alpha for the new scale. Criterion validity of the to the two older groups combined. In this case, those in new scale was tested by calculating correlations with the the middle and oldest age categories were more likely to be original CE scale. Convergent validity of the new scale was missing four of the items from the original scale, but were tested by calculating the correlations of the new CE scale with only more likely to be missing two of the items from the other NOAH measures of neighborhood processes. new scale. In the old scale, these items were the trustworthy In the second section of the analysis, the construct neighbors item (4.2% versus 1.4%, P< 0.01), the fire station validity of the new CE scale was tested in a two-step process. item (3.7% versus 1.8%), the scold a disrespectful child item First, we examined the correlations between the new scale (5.8% versus 2.3%, P< 0.01), and the do something about and the health, mobility and loneliness measures, comparing a child skipping school item (6.3% versus 3.1%, P< 0.01). the results to those from identical analyses using the original In the new scale, these items were the young people know CE scale. Second, we examined whether the new scale can older people item (7.0% versus 3.7%, P< 0.01) and the older predict well-being more accurately in certain demographic people socialize with young adults item (6.0% versus 3.7%, subgroups by comparing the fit statistics of regressions P< 0.05). estimated in those subgroups. 3.3. New Collective Efficacy Scale: Dimensionality, Reliability, 3. Results Criterion and Convergent Validity. The results from the principal component analysis suggested that the eight items 3.1. New Collective Efficacy Scale: Instrument Acceptability. in the new CE scale represented a single latent factor, since We first examined percentage missing for each of the items only one component had an eigenvalue greater than one. The in the original and new CE scales. The items most likely internal consistency reliability of the scale, as measured by to be missing in the original CE scale were “do something Cronbach’s alpha, was 0.81. It was slightly higher for those about kids skipping school” (4.4%) and “scold child for over 77 and men (0.82 for both groups) and slightly lower for showing adult disrespect” (3.7%). The items most likely to those 65–69 and women (0.79 and 0.80, resp.). The internal be missing in the new CE scale were “younger people know consistency reliability of the theoretically defined subscales older people” (5%) and “older people socialize with younger was 0.65 (informal social control) and 0.72 (social cohesion). adults” (4.6%). The percentage missing one or more item To examine the criterion validity of the new scale, from the original CE scale was 10.9%, while the percentage we calculated its correlation with the old CE scale. The missing one or more item from the new CE scale was 13.0%. correlation of the scales with each other was 0.81, the No clear pattern emerged of one scale showing more missing correlation of the theoretically defined old and new social than the other. cohesion subscales was 0.68, and the correlation of the theoretically defined old and new informal social control 3.2. New Collective Efficacy Scale: Differential Nonresponse. subscales was 0.72. The results of the differential nonresponse analysis are shown We next tested for convergent and divergent validity by in Table 2. Consistent with previous research, respondents in examining the association of the new CE scale with the the middle and oldest age categories were more likely than two other NOAH measures of neighborhood quality, neigh- those in the youngest age category to be missing at least borhood disorder and neighborhood exchange (Table 3). one item from both the original and older adult CE scales Neighborhood exchange was more highly correlated with [22]. Theextentofthisdifferential nonresponse by age was the new CE scale than it was with the original scale, 6 Journal of Aging Research Table 2: Percent missing each collective efficacy xcale item, by age group. Young old Middle old Oldest old a b b 65–74 75–84 85–95 N = 60% of the N = 31% of the N = 9% of the sample sample sample Original collective efficacy scale items Close knit neighborhood 0.9 0.1 0.3 ∗∗ ∗∗ Trustworthy neighbors 1.4 3.2+ 7.9 Neighbors help 1.3 1.3 2.4 Fire station 1.8 3.4+ 4.7 ∗∗ ∗ ∗∗ Scold a disrespectful child 2.4 4.9 9.4 Do something about children spraying graffiti 1.7 1.9 7.1 ∗∗ ∗ Do something about children skipping school 3.1 5.5+ 9.4 Break up a fight 0.7+ 1.3 4.7 ∗∗∗ ∗∗ ∗∗ Missing one or more item from the original CE scale 8.3 13.6 19.5 New collective efficacy scale items Respect for old people 1.0 1.2 2.4 Groceries when sick 2.0 2.1 2.4 ∗∗ ∗ Young people know older people 3.7 5.9+ 11.0 ∗ ∗ Older people socialize with young adults 3.7 5.1 9.4 Neighbors intervene to protect threatened elder 1.7 1.1 6.3 Neighbors help fix issue affecting older adults 1.5 1.7 5.5+ Neighbors check on elders during heat wave 2.2 2.1 3.1 Neighbors shovel snow 1.7 2.5 0.8 ∗∗∗ ∗∗ Missing one or more item from the new CE scale 10.9 14.4+ 21.9 a ∗∗ ∗ % missing differs from % missing among middle/oldest old, P< 0.01 P< 0.05 + P< 0.1. ∗∗ ∗ missing differs from % missing among young old, P< 0.01 P< 0.05 + P< 0.1. while neighborhood disorder was more highly (negatively) these models estimated for the male and female subsamples, correlated with the original CE scale than the new CE scale. the married and unmarried subsamples, each of the age Also, disorder was more highly (negatively) correlated with subgroups, and the sub-samples with and without children the new theoretically defined CE subscale of informal control in their households (not shown). There were no differences than with the new theoretically defined CE subscale of social in fit. cohesion, while the reverse was true for exchange. 4. Discussion 3.4. New Collective Efficacy Scale: Construct Validity. In the second part of the analysis, we examined the construct The aim of this paper was to describe the development validity of the new scale by comparing its correlation with and examine the properties of a new theory-based measure various health measures with similar correlations between of CE that incorporates the perspectives of older residents. the original scale and those measures. The correlations One motivation for creating a new scale customized for a between the original and the new CE scales and the self- particular subpopulation is that the increased instrument rated health, mobility, and loneliness measures are shown in acceptability and salience of the customized items may Table 4. The correlation between self-rated health and CE, increase the response rate for the scale items. The results from whether measured with the original or the new scale, was our examination of the percentage missing the individual −0.17 (P< 0.0001). The correlation between mobility and items, as well as percentage missing one or more items from CE, whether measured with the original or the new scale, was the old versus the new CE scales, did not show such effects. 0.07 (P< 0.05). The correlations between loneliness and the Neither at the individual item level, nor at the scale level, did original and new CE scales differed. The correlation with the it appear that one scale is less or more likely to have missing original scale was −0.16 (P< 0.0001) while the correlation values. with the new scale was −0.20 (P< 0.0001). However, another motivation for creating a new scale Lastly, we regressed each of these three measures on customized for a particular subpopulation is that the the two CE measures one at a time and compared the fit increased salience of the customized items may decrease statistics. The fit of the models, as measured by the r- or eliminate differential nonresponse by the variables that squared statistic, was not better for one scale than for the define the subpopulation. The results from our analysis other (not shown). We also compared the fit statistics of suggest such an effect in our new CE scale. The likelihood Journal of Aging Research 7 Table 3: Correlations of collective efficacy scales and subscales with other neighborhood scales. New CE scale— New CE scale—social Original CE scale New CE scale informal social cohesion subscale control subscale Disorder −0.39 −0.33 −0.28 −0.33 Exchange 0.43 0.53 0.52 0.41 All correlations are significant at P< 0.0001, except that between disorder and exchange, which is significant at P< 0.01. Table 4: Correlations of collective efficacy scales with health and as well as in other urban areas. The other limitations of well-being. this study relate to its survey modality. Phone surveys are subject to sampling and response bias, the first exacerbated Original CE scale New CE scale by increased use of call screening technology and the rapid ∗∗∗ ∗∗∗ Self-reported health −0.17 −0.17 growth of telephone marketing [64, 67]. However, the risk ∗ ∗ Mobility 0.07 0.07 of social desirability bias inherent in the telephone survey ∗∗∗ ∗∗∗ Loneliness −0.16 −0.20 administration modality should be relatively minor given the ∗∗∗ ∗∗ ∗ P< 0.001 P< 0.01 P< 0.05 + P< 0.1. non-personal and therefore non-sensitive nature of most of the questions asked [68, 69]. Also, sampling or response bias due to hearing impairment is likely to be less significant than such bias due to vision and fine motor impairment in studies of missing was greater among the oldest old than the rest of using self-administered questionnaires [22, 70]. the sample for five of the eight items in the original scale, but only three of the eight items in the new scale. The new scale is therefore better suited for use in older populations, 5. Conclusions because nonresponse will be less likely to be a function of age. This pattern was also in line with our hypothesis The importance of neighborhood context, and in particular that items related to children would be less relevant and its potential ability to modify adverse health event risk, therefore harder to answer for older adults. Of the items with prevalence, and severity is being increasingly recognized. differential nonresponse, three of the five from the original For example, the original measure of CE has just recently scale and one of the three from the new older adult scale been added to the PhenX toolkit, a set of consensus concerned young people. measures intended to standardize genetic and epidemio- The results of our dimensionality and reliability analysis logical research (http://www.phenxtoolkit.org/-February 4 suggest that the scale measures one factor, with good re- 2011, Version 4.2). While the benefits to using standard liability. It has reasonable criterion validity, in that it was measures include comparability across studies and the closely correlated with the original CE scale and the other two potential to easily combine results in meta-analyses, there neighborhood scales, neighborhood exchange and disorder. are also benefits to using measures customized to particular It was perhaps to be expected that neighborhood exchange populations. The new measure of CE presented in this study would be more highly correlated with the new CE scale than has reliability and validity equivalent to that of the existing with the original scale, while neighborhood disorder would measure but benefits from a stronger gerontology-related be more highly (negatively) correlated with the original CE theoretical grounding and reduced likelihood of age-related scale than with the new CE scale, since the original CE scale differential nonresponse. has an equal number of social cohesion and informal social The two measures exhibited both high correlation and control items, while the new CE scale has 5 social cohesion comparable effects on the health outcomes considered. These items but only 3 informal social control items. This difference findings raise the larger question of the extent to which in the number of items measuring each part of CE may also measures of distinct forms of CE are capturing an underlying explain why disorder was more highly (negatively) correlated latent neighborhood capacity. with the new theoretically defined CE subscale of informal CE theory underscores the goal-directed nature of mobi- control than with the new theoretically defined CE subscale lization capacity, suggesting that a given neighborhood may of social cohesion, while the reverse was true for exchange. have differing levels of CE depending upon the specific The results of the construct validity analysis suggest that challenge under consideration. In this view, communities the new CE scale predicts health and mobility just as well as with high levels of CE with respect to the social control of does the original CE scale and may predict loneliness slightly public space may or may not share a comparable willingness better—an important finding given recent literature on the to maintain and promote the health and well-being of local prevalence and salience of loneliness among older adults. older adults. Yet, in practice, evidence suggests that high levels of CE 4.1. Limitations. The primary limitation of this study is across multiple objectives are likely to cluster together in the its geographic specificity. Because it is limited to a single same communities. This may be due to the shared origins city, replication studies will need to examine the measure’s of distinct forms of CE in the structural (e.g., economic psychometric properties in rural and suburban contexts, advantage, residential stability) and social (e.g., informal 8 Journal of Aging Research network density, voluntary organization participation) con- Aging at the National Institutes of Health (Grant no. R01 ditions of urban neighborhoods. Cohesive neighborhoods AG022488-01 to K.A.Cagney). with high levels of mutual trust and solidarity may provide the conditions under which generalized prosocial norms References emerge, benefiting a broad base of residential constituencies. Although the current analysis offers evidence consistent [1] C. Cannuscio, J. Block, and I. Kawachi, “Social capital and with the notion of a generalized collective capacity, we do successful aging: the role of senior housing,” Annals of Internal not view these results as grounds upon which we reject the Medicine, vol. 139, no. 5, pp. 395–399, 2003. [2] J. H. Oh, “Social bonds and the migration intentions of hypothesis that CE exhibits distinct dimensions. First, CE elderly urban residents: the mediating effects of residential with respect to the social control of public space may have satisfaction,” Population Research and Policy Review, vol. 22, indirect benefits for older adults. Fear and the associated no. 2, pp. 127–146, 2003. withdrawal from neighborhood environments may have [3] World Health Organization, Global Age-Friendy Cities: A important health implications for older adults and may be Guide, WHO Press, Geneva, Switzerland, 2007. strongly related to local norms regarding the social control [4] C. R. Browning and K. A. Cagney, “Neighborhood structural of children (a significant component of the original CE disadvantage, collective efficacy, and self-rated physical health scale). Thus it may be the case that the original CE operates, in an urban setting,” Journal of Health and Social Behavior, vol. 43, no. 4, pp. 383–399, 2002. in part, indirectly to produce comparable associations with [5] K. A. Cagney and C. R. Browning, “Exploring neighborhood- the health outcomes considered. Second, research on the level variation in asthma and other respiratory diseases: dynamics of neighborhood collective capacities is incipient. the contribution of neighborhood social context,” Journal of Analyses of the association and impact of CE measures General Internal Medicine, vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 229–236, 2004. focused on other shared goals (e.g., expectations regarding [6] I. Kawachi and L. F. Berkman, “Social cohesion, social capital, influence of local institutions) may reveal different patterns, and health,” in Social Epidemiology,L.F.Berkman andI. warranting more extensive research. Kawachi, Eds., Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, 2000. In the case of older adult’s perceptions of their commu- [7] A. Nazmi, A. Diez Roux, N. Ranjit, T. E. Seeman, and N. S. Jenny, “Cross-sectional and longitudinal associations nities’ association with the factors that predict whether and of neighborhood characteristics with inflammatory markers: how older adults age in place, the strength and mechanisms findings from the multi-ethnic study of atherosclerosis,” are still not fully understood. For example, it may be that Health and Place, vol. 16, no. 6, pp. 1104–1112, 2010. even before health deteriorates, specific expectations that [8] J.L.Balfour andG.J.Kaplan, “Neighborhood environment neighbors will provide help when needed and will take steps and loss of physical function in older adults: evidence from the to maintain the safety of the common areas are the particular Alameda County Study,” American Journal of Epidemiology, perceptions that predict intentions to stay. Similarly, it may vol. 155, no. 6, pp. 507–515, 2002. be that when health and functionality deteriorate, the specific [9] C. E. Ross, “Walking, exercising, and smoking: does neighbor- perception that neighbors are assuming the caretaking hood matter?” Social Science and Medicine, vol. 51, no. 2, pp. 265–274, 2000. role usually shouldered by family may be the particular [10] M. Wen and N. A. Christakis, “Neighborhood effects on post- perception that forestalls a move. This new measure of CE hospitalization mortality: a population-based cohort study of can be used to test these hypothesized pathways, as well as the elderly in Chicago,” Health Services Research, vol. 40, no. 4, the others discussed in the introduction (Section 1), that may pp. 1108–1127, 2005. link CE to neighborhood satisfaction, health, and the other [11] E. Litwak and C. F. Longino, “Migration patterns among the factors that predict intention to move and actual migration. elderly: a developmental perspective,” Gerontologist, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 266–272, 1987. [12] D. E. Bradley, “Litwak and Longino’s developmental model of Author’s Contribution later-life migration: evidence from the American community survey, 2005–2007,” Journal of Applied Gerontology, vol. 30, no. C. R. Browning and K. A. Cagney planned the study and 2, pp. 141–158, 2011. designed the instrument. A. M. Galinsky performed the [13] J. F. Sergeant, D. J. Ekerdt, and R. K. Chapin, “Older adults’ statistical analysis and wrote the paper. K. A. Cagney super- expectations to move: do they predict actual community- vised the data analysis. K. A. Cagney and C. R. Browning based or nursing facility moves within 2 years?” Journal of Aging and Health, vol. 22, no. 7, pp. 1029–1053, 2010. contributed to the final draft. [14] K. J. Stoeckel and F. Porell, “Do older adults anticipate relocat- ing? The relationship between housing relocation expectations and falls,” Journal of Applied Gerontology,vol. 29, no.2,pp. Acknowledgments 231–250, 2010. [15] F. Earls and S. L. Buka, “Project on human development in The authors are grateful to Alma Kuby, who managed the chicago neighborhoods,” Technical Report, National Institute project, Erin Wargo, who assisted in data collection tasks, of Justice, Rockville, Md, USA, 1997. Colm O’Muircheartaigh and Ned English, who conducted [16] M. P. Lawton, “The Philadelphia geriatric center morale scale: the project’s sample design and management, and Martha a revision,” Journals of Gerontology, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 85–89, Van Haitsma and Kelly Daley, who supervised and managed the telephone interviewing. They thank Robert Sampson for [17] B. L. Neugarten, R. J. Havighurst, and S. S. Tobin, “The meas- consultation on the development of the measures. This work urement of life satisfaction,” Journals of Gerontology, vol. 16, was supported by a grant from the National Institute on pp. 134–143, 1961. Journal of Aging Research 9 [18] D. L. Segal, A. June, M. Payne, F. L. Coolidge, and B. Yochim, [35] D. Dannefer, “Cumulative advantage/disadvantage and the life “Development and initial validation of a self-report as- course: cross-fertilizing age and social science theory,” Journals sessment tool for anxiety among older adults: the Geriatric of Gerontology B, vol. 58, supplement 6, pp. S327–S337, 2003. Anxiety Scale,” Journal of Anxiety Disorders,vol. 24, no.7,pp. [36] G. H. Elder, M. K. Johnson, and R. Crosnoe, “The emergence 709–714, 2010. and development of life course theory,” in Handbook of the Life Course,J.T.Mortimerand M. J. Shanahan,Eds., pp.3–22, [19] J. A. Yesavage,T.L.Brink,T.L.Roseetal., “Development Springer, New York, NY, USA, 2004. and validation of a geriatric depression screening scale: a [37] S. A. Robert, K. A. Cagney, and M. Weden, “A life course ap- preliminary report,” Journal of Psychiatric Research, vol. 17, no. proach to the study of neighborhoods and health,” in Hand- 1, pp. 37–49, 1983. book of Medical Sociology, C. Bird, P. Conrad, and A. M. [20] L. Halvorsrud and M. Kalfoss, “The conceptualization and Fremont, Eds., Vanderbilt University Press, Nashville, Tenn, measurement of quality of life in older adults: a review USA, 2010. of empirical studies published during 1994–2006,” European [38] T. L. Gruenewald, T. E. Seeman, A. S. Karlamangla, and C. A. Journal of Ageing, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 229–246, 2007. Sarkisian, “Allostatic load and frailty in older adults,” Journal [21] R. Fitzpatrick, C. Davey, M. J. Buxton, and D. R. Jones, “Evalu- of the American Geriatrics Society, vol. 57, no. 9, pp. 1525– ating patient-based outcome measures for use in clinical trials: 1531, 2009. a review,” Health Technology Assessment, vol. 2, no. 14, 1998. [39] C. O. Weiss, “Frailty and chronic diseases in older adults,” [22] C. A. McHorney, “Measuring and monitoring general health Clinics in Geriatric Medicine, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 39–52, 2011. status in elderly persons: practical and methodological issues [40] R. O. Hansson and B. N. Carpenter, Relationships in Old Age: in using the SF-36 health survey,” Gerontologist, vol. 36, no. 5, Coping with the Challenge of Transition, Guilford Press, New pp. 571–583, 1996. York, NY, USA, 1994. [23] R. J. Sampson, S. W. Raudenbush, and F. Earls, “Neigh- [41] J. E. Lansford, A. M. Sherman, and T. C. Antonucci, “Satisfac- borhoods and violent crime: a multilevel study of collective tion with social networks: an examination of socioemotional efficacy,” Science, vol. 277, no. 5328, pp. 918–924, 1997. selectivity theory across cohorts,” Psychology and Aging, vol. [24] S. W. Raudenbush and R. J. Sampson, “Ecometrics: toward a 13, no. 4, pp. 544–552, 1998. science of assessing ecological settings, with application to the [42] K. E. Campbell and B. A. Lee, “Sources of personal neighbor systematic social observation of neighborhoods,” Sociological networks: social integration, need, or time?” Social Forces, vol. Methodology, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 1–41, 1999. 70, pp. 77–100, 1992. [25] K. A. Cagney,T.A.Glass, K. A. Skarupski,L.L.Barnes, B. [43] M. H. Cantor, “Life space and the social support system of the S. Schwartz, and C. F. Mendes de Leon, “Neighborhood-level inner city elderly of New York,” Gerontologist, vol. 15, no. 1, cohesion and disorder: measurement and validation in two pp. 23–27, 1975. older adult urban populations,” Journals of Gerontology B, vol. [44] R. A. R. Gurung, S. E. Taylor, and T. E. Seeman, “Accounting 64, no. 3, pp. 415–424, 2009. for changes in social support among married older adults: [26] D. T. Lau, K. G. Scandrett, M. Jarzebowski, K. Holman, and insights from the MacArthur studies of successful aging,” L. Emanuel, “Health-related safety: a framework to address Psychology and Aging, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 487–496, 2003. barriers to aging in place,” Gerontologist, vol. 47, no. 6, pp. [45] M. W. Riley and J. W. Riley, “Age integration: conceptual and 830–837, 2007. historical background,” Gerontologist, vol. 40, no. 3, pp. 266– 270, 2000. [27] E. H. Erikson and J. M. Erikson, The Life Cycle Completed, [46] G. O. Hagestad, “Towards a society for all ages: new thinking, Norton, New York, NY, USA, 1997. new language, new conversations,” United Nations Bulletin on [28] C. D. Ryff, “Psychological well-being in adult life,” Current Aging, no. 2-3, 1998. Directions in Psychological Science, vol. 4, pp. 99–104, 1995. [47] G. O. Hagestad and D. Dannefer, “Concepts and theories of [29] C.D. Ryff, “Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations aging: beyond microfication in social science approaches,” in on the meaning of psychological well-being,” JournalofPer- Handbook of Aging and the Social Sciences,R.H.Binstock and sonality and Social Psychology, vol. 57, no. 6, pp. 1069–1081, L. K. George, Eds., pp. 3–21, Academic Press, New York, NY, USA, 5th edition, 2001. [30] L. P. Fried, C. M. Tangen, J. Walston et al., “Frailty in older [48] P. Uhlenberg, “Integration of old and young,” Gerontologist, adults: evidence for a phenotype,” Journals of Gerontology, vol. vol. 40, no. 3, pp. 276–279, 2000. 56, no. 3, pp. M146–M156, 2001. [49] G. O. Hagestad and P. Uhlenberg, “The social separation of old [31] K. Erikson, “Reflections on generativity and society: a sociolo- andyoung:aroot of ageism,” Journal of Social Issues, vol. 61, gist’s perspective,” in The Generative Society: Caring for Future no. 2, pp. 343–360, 2005. Generations,E.deSt. Aubin, D. P. McAdams, andT.Kim,Eds., [50] E. Janse, “Processing of fast speech by elderly listeners,” Journal pp. 51–61, American Psychological Association, Washington, of the Acoustical Society of America, vol. 125, no. 4, pp. 2361– DC, USA, 2004. 2373, 2009. [32] E. Pfeiffer, “Psychopathology and social pathology,” in Hand- [51] X. Z. Liu and D. Yan, “Ageing and hearing loss,” Journal of book of the Psychology of Aging, J. E. Birren and K. W. Schaie, Pathology, vol. 211, no. 2, pp. 188–197, 2007. Eds., pp. 650–671, Academic Press, New York, NY, USA, 1977. [52] N. Wild-Wall and M. Falkenstein, “Age-dependent impair- [33] C. D. Ryff, “Beyond Ponce de Leon and life satisfaction: new ment of auditory processing under spatially focused and directions in quest of successful ageing,” International Journal divided attention: an electrophysiological study,” Biological of Behavioral Development, vol. 12, p. 55, 1989. Psychology, vol. 83, no. 1, pp. 27–36, 2010. [34] B. Cornwell, L. P. Schumm, E. O. Laumann, and J. Graber, [53] M. W. Riley and J. W. Riley, “Age integration and the lives of “Social networks in the nshap study: rationale, measurement, older people,” Gerontologist, vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 110–115, 1994. and preliminary findings,” Journals of Gerontology B, vol. 64, [54] M. W. Riley, “Successful aging,” The Gerontologist, vol. 38, no. no. 1, pp. I47–I55, 2009. 2, p. 151, 1998. 10 Journal of Aging Research [55] T. L. Gruenewald, A. S. Karlamangla, G. A. Greendale, B. H. Singer, and T. E. Seeman, “Increased mortality risk in older adults with persistently low or declining feelings of usefulness to others,” Journal of Aging and Health, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 398– 425, 2009. [56] B. Levy and M. R. Banaji, “Implicit ageism,” in Ageism: Stereotyping and Prejudice Against Older Persons,T.Nelson, Ed., pp. 49–75, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass, USA, 2002. [57] P. F. Adams, G. E. Hendershot, and M. A. Marano, “Current estimates from the national health interview survey, United States, 1996,” Tech. Rep. 200, National Center for Health Statistics, Hyattsville, Md, USA, 1999. [58] L. P. Fried, L. Ferrucci, J. Darer, J. D. Williamson, and G. Anderson, “Untangling the concepts of disability, frailty, and comorbidity: implications for improved targeting and care,” Journals of Gerontology, vol. 59, no. 3, pp. 255–263, 2004. [59] L. P. Fried, C. M. Tangen, J. Walston et al., “Frailty in older adults: evidence for a phenotype,” Journals of Gerontology, vol. 56, no. 3, pp. M146–M156, 2001. [60] L. Ferrucci,J.M.Guralnik,S.Studenski,L.P.Fried,G.B. Cutler, and J. D. Walston, “Designing randomized, controlled trials aimed at preventing or delaying functional decline and disability in frail, older persons: a consensus report,” Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, vol. 52, no. 4, pp. 625–634, [61] C. R. Clark, I. Kawachi, L. Ryan, K. Ertel, M. E. Fay, and L. F. Berkman, “Perceived neighborhood safety and incident mobility disability among elders: the hazards of poverty,” BMC Public Health, vol. 9, article 162, 2009. [62] J. W. Reich, A. J. Zautra, and J. Hill, “Activity, event transac- tions, and quality of life in older adults,” Psychology and Aging, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 116–124, 1987. [63] E. Wargo, N. English, and A. Kuby, NOAH—Neighborhood, Organization, Aging and Health, NORC/University of Chicago, Chicago, Ill, USA, 2008. [64] R. Curtin, S. Presser, and E. Singer, “Changes in telephone survey nonresponse over the past quarter century,” Public Opinion Quarterly, vol. 69, no. 1, pp. 87–98, 2005. [65] M. Tonry, L. E. Ohlin, and D. P. Farrington, “Human de- velopment and criminal behavior: new ways of advancing knowledge,” in Research in Criminology,A.Blumstein andD. P. Farrington, Eds., Springer, New York, NY, USA, 1991. [66] M. E. Hughes,L.J.Waite,L.C.Hawkley,and J. T. Cacioppo, “A short scale for measuring loneliness in large surveys: results from two population-based studies,” Research on Aging, vol. 26, no. 6, pp. 655–672, 2004. [67] A. M. Kempf and P. L. Remington, “New challenges for telephone survey research in the twenty-first century,” Annual Review of Public Health, vol. 28, pp. 113–126, 2007. [68] A. L. Holbrook, M. C. Green, and J. A. Krosnick, “Telephone versus face-to-face interviewing of national probability sam- ples with long questionnaires: comparisons of respondent sat- isficing and social desirability response bias,” Public Opinion Quarterly, vol. 67, no. 1, pp. 79–125, 2003. [69] A. R. Herzog and W. L. Rodgers, “Interviewing older adults: mode comparison using data from a face-to-face survey and a telephone resurvey,” Public Opinion Quarterly,vol. 52, no.1, pp. 84–99, 1988. [70] D. O. Kaldenberg, H. F. Koenig, and B. W. Becker, “Mail survey response rate patterns in a population of the elderly: does response deteriorate with age?” Public Opinion Quarterly, vol. 58, no. 1, pp. 68–76, 1994. MEDIATORS of INFLAMMATION The Scientific Gastroenterology Journal of World Journal Research and Practice Diabetes Research Disease Markers Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 International Journal of Journal of Immunology Research Endocrinology Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 Submit your manuscripts at http://www.hindawi.com BioMed PPAR Research Research International Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 Journal of Obesity Evidence-Based Journal of Journal of Stem Cells Complementary and Ophthalmology International Alternative Medicine Oncology Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 Parkinson’s Disease Computational and Behavioural Mathematical Methods AIDS Oxidative Medicine and in Medicine Research and Treatment Cellular Longevity Neurology Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014

Journal

Journal of Aging ResearchHindawi Publishing Corporation

Published: Jan 23, 2012

References