Assessing Communities’ Age-Friendliness: How Congruent Are Subjective Versus Objective Assessments?

The notion of age-friendliness is gaining increasing attention from policy makers and researchers. In this study, we examine the congruence between two types of age-friendly surveys: subjective assessments by community residents versus objective assessments by municipal officials. The study was base...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of applied gerontology 2016-05, Vol.35 (5), p.549-565
Main Authors: Menec, Verena H., Newall, Nancy E. G., Nowicki, Scott
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Canada
Community
Community development
Comparative analysis
Environment Design - trends
Female
Housing
Humans
Independent Living
Male
Policy making
Regression Analysis
Residence Characteristics
Residents
Rural areas
Rural communities
Rural Population
Surveys and Questionnaires
Transportation
Citations: Items that this one cites
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:The notion of age-friendliness is gaining increasing attention from policy makers and researchers. In this study, we examine the congruence between two types of age-friendly surveys: subjective assessments by community residents versus objective assessments by municipal officials. The study was based on data from 39 mostly rural communities in Manitoba, Canada, in which a municipal official and residents (M = 25 residents per community) completed a survey to assess age-friendly features in a range of domains, such as transportation and housing. Congruence between the two surveys was generally good, although the municipal official survey consistently overestimated communities’ age-friendliness, relative to residents’ ratings. The findings suggest that a survey completed by municipal officials can provide a reasonable assessment of age-friendliness that may be useful for certain purposes, such as cross-community comparisons. However, some caution is warranted when using only these surveys for community development, as they may not adequately reflect residents’ views.
ISSN:0733-4648
1552-4523
DOI:10.1177/0733464814542612