ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2026
Development and Pilot Validation of an Age-Friendly City Assessment Tool Based on Older Adults' Perspectives in a Semi-Urban Community.
Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAge-friendly city (AFC) initiatives are widely promoted to support healthy aging; however, most existing AFC assessments rely on administrative or expert-driven evaluations that primarily reflect institutional perspectives. These approaches may overlook how age-friendly characteristics are experienced by older adults-the population most directly affected by community environments-particularly in semi-urban settings. This study aimed to develop and conduct a preliminary psychometric evaluation of an AFC assessment tool based on older adults' perspectives.
methodsA Research and Development (R&D) design was employed. The instrument was conceptually grounded in the World Health Organization Age-Friendly Cities framework and adapted from a governmental checklist through item reformulation and contextual modification for semi-urban application in Thai setting. Content validity was examined by an expert panel using the Index of Item-Objective Congruence (IOC). Preliminary internal consistency reliability testing was conducted with a small purposive sample of older adults. The refined instrument was then pilot-tested with an independent sample of community-dwelling older adults to evaluate feasibility and descriptive response patterns. Internal consistency reliability was assessed using Cronbach's alpha, and descriptive analyses were performed across domains and subdomains.
resultsThe finalized instrument comprised 52 items across three domains and eight subdomains. Content validity was strong, with IOC values ranging from 0.80 to 1.00. Preliminary reliability testing demonstrated high internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha = 0.97), indicating suitability for pilot use while suggesting potential item redundancy. Pilot responses showed predominantly high perceived age-friendliness, with moderate scores in selected subdomains.
conclusionsThe AFC Assessment Tool demonstrated strong preliminary psychometric properties and practical feasibility for use among community-dwelling older adults in semi-urban settings. By incorporating older adults' perspectives, the tool provides a context-sensitive approach that complements existing administrative and objective assessments. Further validation using larger and more diverse samples is needed to establish construct validity, confirm dimensional structure, and strengthen applicability in public health and environmental gerontology research.
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.