» Articles » PMID: 36360838

Reliability and Validity of the Japanese Version of the Assessment of Readiness for Mobility Transition (ARMT-J) for Japanese Elderly

Overview
Publisher MDPI
Date 2022 Nov 11
PMID 36360838
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

The Assessment of Readiness for Mobility Transition (ARMT) questionnaire assesses individuals' emotional and attitudinal readiness related to mobility as they age. This study aimed to examine the reliability and validity of the Japanese version of the ARMT (ARMT-J). The ARMT-J and related variables were administered to 173 patients and staff members undergoing rehabilitation at hospitals in Japan. Construct validity was first examined using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to confirm cross-cultural validity. For structural validity, the optimal number of factors was confirmed using a Velicer's minimum average partial test and parallel analysis, followed by exploratory factor analysis (EFA). Finally, a CFA was performed using the most appropriate model. Internal consistency, test-retest reliability, standard error of measurement (SEM), and smallest detectable change (SDC) were assessed for reliability. The CFA fit for the factor structure of the original ARMT was low. Therefore, the EFA was conducted with two to four factors. The optimal factor structure was three factors, with a Cronbach's alpha coefficient and Cohen's weighted kappa coefficient of 0.85 and 0.76, respectively. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) of the test-retest was 0.93, the SEM was 0.72, and the SDC was 2.00. The model fit was good for the ARMT-J, with a three-factor structure.

References
1.
Qin W, Xiang X, Taylor H . Driving Cessation and Social Isolation in Older Adults. J Aging Health. 2019; 32(9):962-971. PMC: 7901288. DOI: 10.1177/0898264319870400. View

2.
Qin S, Nelson L, McLeod L, Eremenco S, Coons S . Assessing test-retest reliability of patient-reported outcome measures using intraclass correlation coefficients: recommendations for selecting and documenting the analytical formula. Qual Life Res. 2018; 28(4):1029-1033. PMC: 6439259. DOI: 10.1007/s11136-018-2076-0. View

3.
Wang S, Phillips D, Lee J . Disability prevalence in midlife (aged 55-65 years): Cross-Country comparisons of gender differences and time trends. Womens Midlife Health. 2021; 7(1):1. PMC: 7777402. DOI: 10.1186/s40695-020-00061-0. View

4.
OConnor M, Edwards J, Small B, Andel R . Patterns of level and change in self-reported driving behaviors among older adults: who self-regulates?. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 2011; 67(4):437-46. PMC: 3391073. DOI: 10.1093/geronb/gbr122. View

5.
Persson H, Selander H . Transport mobility 5 years after stroke in an urban setting. Top Stroke Rehabil. 2018; 25(3):180-185. DOI: 10.1080/10749357.2017.1419619. View