Skip to main content

Review of Assessment Tools for Baseline and Follow-up Measurement of Age-Friendliness


The World Health Organization (WHO) concept of an Age-Friendly Community (AFC) has emerged as a response to demographic aging and increased urbanization. Although the WHO is in the process of establishing indicators of age-friendliness, currently, no tool has been identified as optimal to measure the age-friendliness of a community on a large scale. The purpose of this scoping review was to identify and examine currently available surveys and questionnaires that can be used to conduct large-scale, quantitative assessments of the age-friendliness in a community. In addition to a literature review, assessment tools were gathered through personal communications. Results indicate that 25 identified assessment tools vary greatly in terms of topics covered, total and number of questions per domain, rigor and availability. We present the strengths and weaknesses of available tools, and determine their suitability for age-friendly assessments. Only one tool, the Community Assessment Survey for Older Adults (CASOA), was sufficiently comprehensive to be considered for modification and use in baseline assessment of the age-friendly features of a community.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.


  1. 1.

    National Research Center Inc., 2955 Valmont Road, Boulder, CO 80301, USA


  1. Age-Friendly Communities, Community-University Research Alliance (CURA). (2010). Age-friendly communities in Manitoba. Retrieved on October 25, 2013 from

  2. Age-friendly Windsor. (2012). Age-friendly Windsor: Report to the Community. Retrieved from

  3. All Psych ONLINE the virtual psychology classroom. Research methods chapter 7: variables, validity, and reliability. Web site. Retrieved on July 25, 2013, from

  4. American Association of Retired Persons Public Policy Institute. (2005). Livable communities: an evaluation guide. Prepared for the AARP Public Policy Institute by Arizona State University Herberger Center for Design Excellence. Retrieved on October 24, 2013 from

  5. Arskey, H., & O’Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(1), 19–32. doi:10.1080/1364557032000119616.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Asbury, J. (1995). Overview of focus group research. Qualitative Health Research, 5(4), 414–420. doi:10.1177/104973239500500402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Blair, T., & Minkler, M. (2009). Participatory action research with older adults: key principles in practice. The Gerontologist, 49(5), 651–662. doi:10.1093/geront/gnp049.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Brien, S., Lorenzetti, D., Lewis, S., Kennedy, J., & Ghali, W. (2010). Overview of a formal scoping review on health system report cards. Implementation Science, 5(2), 1–12. doi:10.1186/1748-5908-5-2.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Burnaby Seniors Interagency Society. (2007). Voices of Burnaby seniors, final report. Retrieved on October 28, 2013, from−+Voices+of+Burnaby+Seniors.pdf.

  10. Chilliwack Social Research and Planning Council. (2009). Age Friendly and quality of life 2008. Retrieved on July 24, 2013, from

  11. City of New Westminster. (2011). Seniors engagement toolkit. Retrieved on October 28, 2013, from

  12. City of Surrey. (2013). Age friendly city survey. Retrieved on July 24, 2013, from

  13. Cuyahoga County Planning Commission in partnership with the Cleveland Foundation. (2004). Guide to elder-friendly community building. Retrieved on Oct 24, 2013, from

  14. De Leo, D., Diekstra, R. F. W., Lonnqvist, J., Cleiren, M., Frisoni, G., Dello Buono, M., Haltunen, A., Zucchetto, M., Rozzini, R., Grigoletto, F., & Sampaio-Faria, J. (1998). LEIPAD, an internationally applicable instrument to assess quality of life in the elderly. Behavioral Medicine, 24(1), 17–27. doi:10.1080/08964289809596377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Federal/Provincial/Territorial Ministers Responsible for Seniors. (2007). Age-friendly rural and remote communities: a guide. Retrieved on July 25, 2013, from

  16. Feldman, P. H., & Oberlink, M. R. (2003). The advantage initiative: developing community indicators to promote the health and well-being of older people. Family and Community Health, 26, 268–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Fleck, M.P.A., Chachamovich, E., Trentini, C.M. (2003). WHOQOL-OLD Project: method and focus group results in Brazil. Revista de Saúde Pública, 37(6). doi: 10.1590/S0034-89102003000600016.

  18. Haliburton Cooperative. (2010). Age-friendly haliburton county. Retrieved on October 24, 2013, from

  19. Hamilton Council on Aging. (2010). Hamilton: A city for all ages. First report to our community. City of Hamilton, ON. January 2010. Retrieved from

  20. Hanson, D., & Emlet, C. A. (2006). Assessing a community’s elder friendliness: a case example of the advantage initiative. Family and Community Health, 29(4), 266–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Lionsview Seniors Planning Society. (2011). Seniors today building a better tomorrow: survey results. Retrieved on October 24, 2013, from

  22. Los Altos Senior Commission. (2012). senior community questionnaire results. Website. Retrieved on October 24, 2013, from

  23. Lui, C. W., Everingham, J. A., Warburton, J., Cuthill, M., & Bartlett, H. (2009). What makes a community age-friendly: a review of the international literature. Australian Journal on Aging, 28, 116–121. doi:10.1111/j.1741-6612.2009.00355.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Mays, N., Roberts, E., & Popay, J. (2001). Synthesizing research evidence. In N. Fulop, P. Allen, A. Clarke, & N. Black (Eds.), Studying the organisation and delivery of health services: Research methods. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Menec, V. H., Means, R., Keating, N., Parkhurst, G., & Eales, J. (2011). Conceptualizing age-friendly communities. Canadian Journal on Aging, 30(3), 479–493. doi:10.1017/S0714980811000237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Metlife Mature Market Institute and Stanford Center on Longevity. (2013). Livable community indicators for sustainable aging in place. Retrieved on October 24, 2013, from

  27. Morgan, D. L. (1988). Focus groups as qualitative research. Newbury Park: Sage Publications. 16, 85.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Murphy, J.M. (2011). Creating an age-friendly community: assessing needs and priorities. Osprey community foundation project. Retrieved on October 28, 2013, from

  29. Murray Alzheimer Research and Education Program. (2013). University of Waterloo. Website.

  30. National Research Center. (2012). City of Novi, Michigan. Full Report. Retrieved on August 15, 2013, from

  31. National Research Center. (2014). Community assessment survey for older adults. Retrieved on December 3, 2014, from

  32. Neill, C., Leipert, B. D., Garcia, A. C., & Kloseck, M. (2011). Using photovoice methodology to investigate facilitators and barriers to food acquisition and preparation by rural older women. Journal of Nutrition in Gerontology and Geriatrics, 30(3), 225–247. doi:10.1080/21551197.2011.591268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Novak, S., Morris-Oswald, T., & Menec, V. (2012). Using photovoice with older adults: some methodological strengths and issues. Ageing and Society, 32(3), 451–470. doi:10.1017/S0144686X11000377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Ontario Seniors Secretariat. (2013). Finding the right fit: age-friendly community planning. Retrieved from

  35. Plouffe, L., & Kalache, A. (2011). Making communities age friendly: state and municipal initiatives in Canada and other countries. Gacita Sanitaria, 25(2), 131–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Plouffe, L., Garon, S., Brownoff, J., Eve, D., Foucault, M., Lawrence, R., Lessard-Beaupré, J., & Toews, V. (2013). Advancing age-friendly communities in Canada. Canadian Review of Social Policy, 68/69(1), 24–38.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Power, M., Quinn, K., Schmidt, S., & the WHOQOL-OLD Group. (2005). Development of the WHOQOL-OLD module. Quality of Life Research, 14, 2197–2214. doi:10.1007/s11136-005-7380-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Public Health Agency of Canada. (2012). Age-friendly communities. Retrieved on July 25, 2013, from

  39. Rossi, P. H., Lipsey, M. W., & Freeman, H. E. (2004). Evaluation: A systematic approach (7th ed.). USA: Sage Publications, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Scharlach, A. E. (2011). Creating aging-friendly communities in the United States. Aging International, 37(1), 25–38. doi:10.1007/s12126-011-9140-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Seniors’ Health Living Secretariat, British Columbia Ministry of Health. (2011). Retrieved on Oct 24, 2013, from

  42. Smith, R. J., Lehning, A. J., & Dunkle, R. E. (2013). Conceptualizing age-friendly community characteristics in a sample of urban elders: an exploratory factor analysis. Journal of Gerontological Social Work, 56, 90–111. doi:10.1080/01634372.2012.739267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Social Planning Council of Cambridge and North Dumfries. (2010). moving towards an age friendly community. Cambridge, ON. Retrieved on Oct 24, 2013, from

  44. Social Planning Council of Sudbury. (2007). 2007 Report on seniors in greater Sudbury. Retrieved on October 28, 2013, from

  45. The New York Academy of Medicine and Age Friendly NYC. (2012). Creating an age-friendly NYC one neighborhood at a time. Retrieved on October 28, 2013, from

  46. Veselyuk, D., Krauchi, W., Ines, R., & Menec, V. (2012). What are other age-friendly communities in Manitoba doing to become more age-friendly? Winnipeg: Centre on Aging.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Vital Aging Network. (2011).Community assessments and surveys. Website.

  48. World Health Organization (WHO). (2007). Global age-friendly cities: A guide. Geneva: World Health Organization.

    Google Scholar 

  49. World Health Organization (WHO). (2009). WHO global network of age-friendly cities. Retrieved on July 24, 2013, from

  50. World Health Organization (WHO). (2013a). WHO global network of age-friendly cities and communities. Retrieved on July 24, 2013, from

  51. World Health Organization (WHO). (2013b). Developing Global indicators for age friendly cities. Oral presentation at the International Association on Gerontology and Geriatrics World Congress, June 26, 2013. Seoul, South Korea.

  52. World Health Organization (WHO). (2014). Developing global indicators for assessing the age-friendliness of cities. Pilot survey report. March 2014. Kobe: WHO Centre for Health Development.

Download references


This project was funded in part by the New Horizons for Seniors Program, Project #: 11733763, Government of Canada.

Conflict of Interest

Authors Michelle Dellamora, Aleksandra Zecevic, Donna Baxter, Anita Cramp, Deborah Fitzsimmons and Marita Kloseck have no affiliation with the National Research Center, Inc. and declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Informed Consent

This scoping review did not involve human participants or animals. For this type of study formal consent is not required.

Ethical Treatment of Experimental Subjects (Animal and Human)

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by the authors.

Funding Source

This project was funded in part by the New Horizons for Seniors Program, Project #: 11733763, Government of Canada.

Author information



Corresponding author

Correspondence to Aleksandra A. Zecevic.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Dellamora, M.C., Zecevic, A.A., Baxter, D. et al. Review of Assessment Tools for Baseline and Follow-up Measurement of Age-Friendliness. Ageing Int 40, 149–164 (2015).

Download citation


  • Age-friendly
  • Baseline assessment
  • Measurement of age-friendliness
  • World health organization
  • Survey