ReviewEuropean journal of ageing2025
A scoping review of measurement tools and a content validity evaluation of the University of Jyvaskyla Active Aging Scale (UJACAS).
Review in European journal of ageing, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The concept of active aging (AA) was defined as the process of optimizing opportunity for health, security, and social participation for older people. While several questionnaires were developed to measure AA, there is no universal consensus on how to measure it, underlining a lack of clarity about what aspects to consider in the evaluation. To contribute to fill this gap, the aims of these two studies were to provide a guide for aging care professionals to choose the most appropriate questionnaire(s) based on a scoping review of the specialist literature and on a content analysis of the questionnaire, that is, the University of Jyvaskyla Active Aging Scale (UJACAS). Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines were used. We found 25 records introducing questionnaires. The content validity evaluation of the most complete questionnaire (in terms of inspected content areas), i.e., UJACAS, was conducted to obtain a complete framework of evaluated aspects. Among the selected questionnaires, heterogeneity was found regarding investigated aspects and relative terms used to describe it. Only two questionnaires were found to be validated in other languages besides the original one. The content validity evaluation of UJACAS revealed its comprehensiveness in covering various aspects of AA. Specifically, five items mainly addressed one content area, while the others encompassed more than one content area. In terms of assessed aspects and translations, the UJACAS scale could be considered the most complete questionnaire for AA evaluation. Furthermore, recognizing the heterogeneity of the terms related to the aspects investigated could help professionals in selecting assessment tools with greater precision.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.