Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Validity and reliability of the Philadelphia Geriatric Center Morale Scale among Turkish elderly people

  • Published:
Quality of Life Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

We translated the original 17-item Philadelphia Geriatric Morale Scale (PGCMS) into Turkish and examined its validity and reliability to determine whether it may used as a tool to measure quality of life (QOL) in a Turkish elderly sample people.

Methods

The sample included 398 participants aged 65 years living in institutions. Participants who were cognitively impaired (Abbreviated Mental Test score less than 7) or who could not answer questions for other reasons were excluded. Preliminary analysis was conducted to investigate multicollinearity, univariate and multivariate outliers, normality, item difficulty and discriminatory power of individual items. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to test the structure of the PGCMS. By means of convergent–divergent validity, correlations between PGCMS and Turkish SF-36, correlations between PGCMS and social support scores, and correlations between PGCMS and hopelessness scores were investigated. Reliability was based on internal consistency investigated by Kuder-Richardson-20 (KD-20) and item-total correlation.

Results

By means of multicollinearity, we deleted two items. Neither univariate nor multivariate outliers were found. No items showed skewness and kurtosis value greater than recommended. A model containing 15 of the PGCMS items was found to fit Turkish data perfectly. We identified three underlying factors including agitation, attitude toward own aging, and lonely dissatisfaction similar to original PGCMS’s three-factor solution. There were strong correlations between PGCMS’s subscales. The correlations with the physical and mental domain in SF-36, correlations between PGCMS and social support, and correlation between PGCMS and hopelessness supported construct validity. We found satisfactory evidence of internal consistency (KD-20 was 0.92 for total PGCMS and it ranged from 0.76 to 0.85 for subscales in the PGCMS) with item-total correlations ranging from 0.39 to 0.73.

Conclusions

The PGCMS is a valid and reliable quality of life measure in elderly Turkish people.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

A:

Agitation

AGFI:

Adjusted goodness of fit index

ATOA:

Attitude toward own aging

BHS:

Beck Hopelessness Scale

CFA:

Confirmatory factor analysis

CFI:

Comparative fit index

CI:

Confidence interval

GFI:

Goodness of fit index

LD:

Lonely dissatisfaction

MCS:

Mental component summary

MSPSS:

Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support

PCS:

Physical component summary

PGCMS:

Philadelphia Geriatric Center Morale Scale

RMSEA:

Root mean square error of approximation

QOL:

Quality of life

SD:

Standard deviation

SF-36:

Medical Outcomes Study MOS 36-Item Short Form Health Survey

SPSS:

Statistical Package for Social Sciences

References

  1. Kudo, H., Izumo, Y., Kodama, H., Watanabe, M., Hatakeyama, R., Fukuoka, Y., et al. (2007). Life satisfaction in older people. Geriatrics & Gerontology International, 7, 15–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Lawton, M. P. (1975). The Philadelphia Geriatric Center Morale Scale: A revision. Journal of Gerontology, 3, 85–89.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Ranzijn, R., & Luszcz, M. (2000). Measurement of subjective quality of life of elders. International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 50, 263–278.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Liang, J., & Bollen, K. (1983). The structure of the Philadelphia Geriatric Center Morale Scale: A reinterpretation. Journal of Gerontology, 38, 181–189.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Onishi, J., Masuda, Y., Suzuki, Y., Gotoh, T., Kawamura, T., & Iguchi, A. (2006). The pleasurable recreational activities among community-dwelling older adults. Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics, 43, 147–155.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Takemasa, S. (1998). Factors affecting QOL of the home-bound elderly disabled. Kobe Journal of Medical Sciences, 44, 99–114.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Wågert, P. V. H., Rönnmark, B., Rosendahl, E., Lundin-Olsson, L., Gustavsson, M. C., Nygren, B., et al. (2005). Morale in the oldest old: The Umea 85+ study. Age and Ageing, 34, 249–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Wong, E., Woo, J., Hui, E., & Ho, S. C. (2004). Examination of the Philadelphia Geriatric Morale Scale as a subjective quality-of-life measure in elderly Hong Kong Chinese. The Gerontologist, 44, 408–417.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Woo, J., Ho, S. C., & Wong, E. M. (2005). Depression is the predominant factor contributing to morale as measured by the Philadelphia Geriatric Morale Scale in elderly Chinese aged 70 years and over. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 20, 1052–1059.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Gerritsen, D. L., Steverink, N., Ooms, M. E., de Vet, H. C. W., & Ribbe, M. W. (2007). Measurement of overall quality of life in nursing homes through self-report: The role of cognitive impairment. Quality of Life Research, 16, 1029–1037.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Royal College of Physicians and the British Geriatric Society. (1992). A report of joint workshops of the research Unit of the Royal College of Physicians and the British Geriatric Society: Standardized assessment scales for elderly people (pp. 16–17). London: Royal College of Physicians and the British Geriatric Society.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Liang, J., Asano, H., Bollen, K. A., Kahana, E. F., & Maada, D. (1987). Cross-cultural comparability of the Philadelphia Geriatric Center Morale Scale: An American-Japanese comparison. Journal of Gerontology, 42, 37–43.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Mcculloch, B. J. (1991). A longitudinal investigation of the factor structure of subjective well-being: The case of Philadelphia Geriatric Center Morale Scale. Journal of Gerontology, 46, 251–258.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Morris, J. N., & Sherwood, S. (1975). A retesting and modification of the Philadelphia Geriatric Center Morale Scale. Journal of Gerontology, 30, 77–84.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Turkey National Population Census. (2007). http://www.tuik.gov.tr. Retrieved March 5, 2008.

  16. Hodkinson, H. M. (1972). Evaluation of a mental test scores for assessment of mental impairment in the elderly. Age and Ageing, 1, 233–238.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Swain, D. G., O’Brien, A. G., & Nightingale, P. G. (1999). Cognitive assessment in elderly patients admitted to hospital: The relationship between the Abbreviated Mental Test and the Mini-Mental State Examination. Clinical Rehabilitation, 13, 503–508.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Ware, J. E., & Sherbourne, C. D. (1992). The MOS 36 item short form health survey (SF-36). Medical Care, 30, 473–483.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Haywood, K. L., Garratt, A. M., & Fitzpatrick, R. (2005). Quality of life in older people: A structured review of generic self-assessed health instruments. Quality of Life Research, 14, 1651–1668.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Pinar, R. (1995). Sağlık araştırmalarında yeni bir kavram: Yaşam kalitesi, bir yaşam kalitesi ölçeğinin kronik hastalarda geçerlik ve güvenirliğinin sınanması [New concept in health research: Quality of life, validity and reliability of a quality of life measurement scale]. Hemşirelik Bülteni, 9, 84–95.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Ko, Y., Swu-Jane, L., Salmon, J. W., & Bron, M. S. (2005). The impact of urinary incontinence on quality of life of the elderly. The American Journal of Managed Care, 11, 103–111.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Pinar, R., & Cinar, S. (2001). Istanbul ilinde huzurevi ve huzurevi dışında yaşayan yaşlıların yaşam doyumları (kaliteleri) farklı mı? Karşılaştırmalı bir çalışma [Is quality of life different between elderly people who live their homes and who live in elderly institutions in Istanbul: A comparative study?]. Hemşire Dergisi, 51, 10–18.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Rodríguez-Artalejo, F., Guallar-Castillón, P., Pascual, C. R., Otero, C. M., Montes, A. O., García, A. N., et al. (2005). Health-related quality of life as a predictor of hospital readmission and death among patients with heart failure. Archives Journal of Internal Medicine, 165, 1274–1279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Zimet, G. D., Dahlem, N. W., Zimet, S. G., & Farley, G. K. (1988). The Multidimensional scale of perceived social support. Journal of Personality Assessment, 52, 30–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Zimet, G. D., Powell, S. S., Farley, G. K., Werkman, S., & Berkoff, K. A. (1990). Psychometric properties of the multidimensional scale of perceived social support. Journal of Personality Assessment, 55, 610–617.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Eker, D., & Arkar, H. (1995). Çok Boyutlu Algılanan Sosyal Destek Ölçeği“ nin faktor yapısı, geçerlik ve güvenirliği [Factorial structure, validity and reliability of the Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support]. Türk Psikiyatri Dergisi, 10, 45–55.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Beck, A. T., Weissman, A., Lester, D., & Trexler, L. (1974). The measurement of pessimism: The Hopelessness Scale. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42, 861–865.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Seber, G., Dilbaz, N., Kaptanoglu, C., & Tekin, D. (1993). Ümitsizlik ölçeği: Geçerlik güvenirlik [Hopelessness Scale: Validity and reliability]. Kriz Dergisi, 1, 134–138.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York: The Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics: International student edition (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Backhoff, E., Larrazolo, N., & Rosas, M. (2000). The level of difficulty and discrimination power of the basic knowledge and skills examination (EXHCOBA). Revista Electrónica de Investigación Educativa, 2 (1). Retrieved January 8, 2010 from: http://redie.uabc.mx/vol2no1/contents-backhoff.html.

  32. Brown, J. D. (1988). Understanding research in second language learning: A teacher’s guide to statistics and research design. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., & Müler, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods Psychological Research Online, 8, 23–74.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Streiner, D. L., & Norman, G. R. (2003). Health measurement scales: A practical guide to their development and use. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Fayers, F. M. (2008). The scales were highly correlated: p = 0.0001. Quality of Life Research, 17, 651–652.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. A. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Todd, C., & Bradley, C. (1994). Evaluating the design and development of Psychological scales. In C. Bradley (Ed.), Handbook of psychology and diabetes: A Guide to psychological measurement in diabetes research and practice (pp. 15–42). Switzerland: Harwood Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  38. SPSS Inc. (2008). SPSS for windows- release 15. Chicago: SPSS Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (2004). LISREL 8: User’s reference guide. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Jones, E. G., Lee, J. W., Phillips, L., Zhang, X. E., & Jaceldo, K. B. (2001). An adaptation of Brislin’s Translation Model for cross-cultural research. Nursing Research, 5, 300–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Jones, E. G., Mallison, R. K., Phillips, L., & Kang, Y. (2006). Challenges in language, culture, and modality: Translation English measures into American Sign Language. Nursing Research, 55, 75–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Torres, S. (1999). A culturally relevant theoretical framework for the study of successful ageing. Ageing and Society, 19, 33–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Keith, J., Fry, C. L., & Glascock, A. P. (1994). The ageing experience: Diversity and communality across cultures. London: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Wenger, G. C., Davies, R., & Shahtahmasebi, S. (1995). Morale in old age: Refining the model. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 10, 933–943.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Health Sciences, Department of Nursing and Health Services, Yeditepe University, Istanbul, Turkey

    Rukiye Pinar

  2. Health Sciences Institute, Marmara University, Istanbul, Turkey

    Havva Oz

  3. İnönü Mah, Celasun Cad, Gözpinar Apt, No: 26, 34755, Ataşehir, İstanbul, Turkey

    Rukiye Pinar

Authors
  1. Rukiye Pinar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Havva Oz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rukiye Pinar.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Pinar, R., Oz, H. Validity and reliability of the Philadelphia Geriatric Center Morale Scale among Turkish elderly people. Qual Life Res 20, 9–18 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-010-9723-4

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-010-9723-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation