Quality of Life Research

, Volume 20, Issue 7, pp 997–1004 | Cite as

The CASP-19 as a measure of quality of life in old age: evaluation of its use in a retirement community

Article

Abstract

Purpose

The CASP-19 is a quality-of-life measure comprising four domains (‘control’, ‘autonomy’, ‘pleasure’ and ‘self-realization’), developed initially in a population aged 65–75 years. This study tested the scale for use in a population whose demographic profile and residential status differed markedly from the original population.

Methods

CASP-19 data were gathered from 120 residents of a UK retirement community. Distribution of scores, factor structure, internal consistency and construct validity were examined.

Results

Scores were negatively skewed, especially on the pleasure domain. Attempts to confirm the factor structure of the scale were equivocal. Coefficients for composite reliability ranged from 0.52 to 0.84 across domains. Some items, particularly in the control and autonomy domains, showed low correlations with their domains. The CASP-19 correlated with the Diener Satisfaction with Life Scale (r = 0.66), and the physical (r = 0.53) and mental (r = 0.49) component summaries of the SF-12, supporting its construct validity. A recently proposed 12-item version of the scale appears to have superior dimensionality.

Conclusion

Although in some respects the CASP-19 exhibited good psychometric properties, the internal consistency and dimensionality of the control and autonomy domains are suspect. Further modification of the scale may be fruitful from a psychometric point of view.

Keywords

Quality of life Well-being Measurement Psychometrics Old age 

Abbreviations

BHPS

British Household Panel Survey

CFA

Confirmatory factor analysis

CFI

Comparative fit index

ELSA

English Longitudinal Study of Ageing

RMSEA

Root mean square error of approximation

SWLS

Satisfaction with Life Scale

TLI

Tucker Lewis index

Supplementary material

11136_2010_9835_MOESM1_ESM.tif (115 kb)
Figs. 1a–1c. Factor structures tested on the CASP-19. Scale items are denoted by rectangles, whilst latent variables are represented by ellipses. The small ellipses represent the residual error terms associated with observed variables and with lower-order latent variables. Straight, single-headed arrows indicate that one variable (at the origin of the arrow) ‘explains’ another variable (at the head of the arrow) in the hypothesized model. Curved lines with arrows at both ends symbolize a non-directional covariance between two variables. Supplementary material 1 (TIFF 114 kb)
11136_2010_9835_MOESM2_ESM.tif (104 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (TIFF 104 kb)
11136_2010_9835_MOESM3_ESM.tif (103 kb)
Supplementary material 3 (TIFF 103 kb)
11136_2010_9835_MOESM4_ESM.tif (61 kb)
Fig. 2. Distribution of CASP-19 total scores. The vertical reference line indicates the mean score (40.24). The possible range of scores is 0–57. The superimposed curve indicates the shape of a normal distribution for the mean and standard deviation of these data; n = 120. Supplementary material 4 (TIFF 61 kb)
11136_2010_9835_MOESM5_ESM.tif (95 kb)
Fig. 3. Distribution of CASP-19 domain (subscale) scores. The vertical reference line indicates the mean score (7.38, 10.92, 13.22, and 8.73 for the control, autonomy, pleasure and self-realization domains, respectively). The possible range of scores is 0–12 for the control domain and 0–15 for the other domains. The superimposed curve indicates the shape of a normal distribution for the mean and standard deviation of these data; n = 120. Supplementary material 5 (TIFF 95 kb)
11136_2010_9835_MOESM6_ESM.tif (84 kb)
Fig. 4. Factor structure tested on the CASP-12. Scale items are denoted by rectangles, whilst latent variables are represented by ellipses. The small ellipses represent the residual error terms associated with observed variables and with lower-order latent variables. Straight, single-headed arrows indicate that one variable (at the origin of the arrow) ‘explains’ another variable (at the head of the arrow) in the hypothesized model. Supplementary material 6 (TIFF 83 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Gee, E. M. (2000). Living arrangements and quality of life among Chinese Canadian elders. Social Indicators Research, 51, 309–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sirgy, M. J., Rahtz, D. R., Cicic, M., & Underwood, R. (2000). A method for assessing residents’ satisfaction with community-based services: A quality-of-life perspective. Social Indicators Research, 49, 279–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Staniszewska, S. (1999). Patient expectations and health-related quality of life. Health Expectations, 2, 93–104.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bond, J., & Corner, L. (2004). Quality of life and older people. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bowling, A. (2005). Ageing well: Quality of life in old age. Maidenhead: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Walker, A. (2005). Understanding quality of life in old age. Maidenhead: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Walker, A., & Hagan Hennessey, C. (2004). Growing older: Quality of life in old age. Maidenhead: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lawton, M. P. (1991). A multidimensional view of quality of life in frail elders. In J. E. Birren, J. Lubben, J. Rowe, & O. Deutchman (Eds.), The concept and measurement of quality of life in the frail elderly (pp. 3–27). San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gitlin, L. N. (2003). Conducting research on home environments: Lessons learned and new directions. The Gerontologist, 43, 628–637.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Beaumont, J. G., & Kenealy, P. M. (2004). Quality of life perceptions and social comparisons in healthy old age. Ageing and Society, 24, 755–769.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bech, P. (1999). Methodological issues in individual quality of life measurement. In C. R. B. Joyce, C. A. O’Boyle, & H. M. McGee (Eds.), Individual quality of life: Approaches to conceptualization and assessment (pp. 51–63). Amsterdam: Harwood Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hyde, M., Wiggins, R. D., Higgs, P., & Blane, D. B. (2003). A measure of quality of life in early old age: the theory, development and properties of a needs satisfaction model (CASP-19). Aging and Mental Health, 7, 186–194.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wiggins, R. D., Netuveli, G., Hyde, M., Higgs, P., & Blane, D. (2008). The evaluation of a self-enumerated scale of quality of life (CASP-19) in the context of research on ageing: A combination of exploratory and confirmatory approaches. Social Indicators Research, 89, 61–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Taylor, M., Brice, J., Buck, N., & Prentice-Lane, E. (2003). British Household Panel Survey user manual. Volume A: Introduction, technical report and appendices. University of Essex, Colchester: UK Data Archive.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Marmot, M., Banks, J., Blundell, R., Lesof, C., & Nazroo, J. (2003). Health, wealth and lifestyles of the older population in England: The 2002 English Longitudinal Study of Ageing. London: Institute for Fiscal Studies.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Maslow, A. H. (1999). Toward a psychology of being (3rd ed.). New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Higgs, P., Hyde, M., Wiggins, R., & Blane, D. (2003). Researching quality of life in early old age: The importance of the sociological dimension. Social Policy and Administration, 37, 239–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bernard, M., Bartlam, B., Biggs, S., & Sim, J. (2004). New lifestyles in old age: Health, identity and well-being in Berryhill Retirement Village. Bristol: Policy Press.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Thompson, B. (2004). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis: Understanding concepts and applications. Washington DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Marsh, H. W., Hau, K.-T., & Wen, Z. (2004). In search of golden rules: Comment on hypothesis-testing approaches to setting cutoff values for fit indexes and dangers in overgeneralizing Hu and Bentler’s (1999) findings. Structural Equation Modeling, 11, 320–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Marsh, H. W., Hau, K.-T., & Grayson, D. (2005). Goodness of fit evaluation in structural equation modeling. In A. Maydeu-Olivares & J. J. McCardle (Eds.), Contemporary psychometrics: A Festschrift to Roderick P. McDonald (pp. 275–340). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Barrett, P. (2007). Structural equation modeling: Adjudging model fit. Personality and Individual Differences, 42, 815–824.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mulaik, S. (2007). There is a place for approximate fit in structural equation modeling. Personality and Individual Differences, 42, 883–891.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Brown, T. A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Marsh, H. W., Balla, J. R., & McDonald, R. P. (1988). Goodness-of-fit indices in confirmatory factor analysis: The effect of sample size. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 391–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Byrne, B. M. (2010). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications and programming (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Blunch, N. J. (2008). Introduction to structural equation modelling using SPSS and AMOS. Los Angeles: Sage.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kline, P. (1993). The handbook of psychological testing. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Streiner, D. L., & Norman, G. R. (2008). Health measurement scales: A practical guide to their development and use (4th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Raykov, T. (1997). Estimation of composite reliability for congeneric measures. Applied Psychological Measurement, 21, 173–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Sijtsma, K. (2009). On the use, the misuse, and the very limited usefulness of Cronbach’s alpha. Psychometrika, 74, 107–120.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Raykov, T. (2001). Bias of Cronbach’s alpha for fixed congeneric measures with correlated errors. Applied Psychological Measurement, 25, 69–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Huysamen, G. K. (2006). Coefficient alpha: Unnecessarily ambiguous, unduly ubiquitous. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 32, 34–40.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    DeVellis, R. F. (2003). Scale development: Theory and applications (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The Satisfaction with Life Scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 71–75.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Ware, J. E., Kosinski, M., & Keller, S. D. (1996). A 12-item short-form health survey: Construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity. Medical Care, 34, 220–233.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Gjonça, E., & Calderwood, L. (2003). Socio-demographic characteristics. In M. Marmot, J. Banks, R. Blundell, C. Lessof, & J. Nazroo (Eds.), Health, wealth and lifestyles of the older population in England: The 2002 English Longitudinal Study of Ageing. London: Institute for Fiscal Studies.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Raykov, T. (2008). Alpha if item deleted: A note on loss of criterion validity in scale development if maximizing coefficient alpha. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 61, 275–285.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Schriesheim, C. A., & Hill, K. D. (1981). Controlling acquiescence response bias by item reversals: The effect on questionnaire validity. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 41, 1101–1114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Julius Sim
    • 1
  • Bernadette Bartlam
    • 1
  • Miriam Bernard
    • 1
  1. 1.Centre for Social GerontologyKeele UniversityStaffordshireUK

Personalised recommendations