4
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Buddy's Glee Club: Singing for Life

      Activities, Adaptation & Aging
      Informa UK Limited

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisher
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Related collections

          Most cited references18

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          The positive and negative affect schedule (PANAS): construct validity, measurement properties and normative data in a large non-clinical sample.

          To evaluate the reliability and validity of the PANAS (Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988b) and provide normative data. Cross-sectional and correlational. The PANAS was administered to a non-clinical sample, broadly representative of the general adult UK population (N = 1,003). Competing models of the latent structure of the PANAS were evaluated using confirmatory factor analysis. Regression and correlational analysis were used to determine the influence of demographic variables on PANAS scores as well as the relationship between the PANAS with measures of depression and anxiety (the HADS and the DASS). The best-fitting model (robust comparative fit index = .94) of the latent structure of the PANAS consisted of two correlated factors corresponding to the PA and NA scales, and permitted correlated error between items drawn from the same mood subcategories (Zevon & Tellegen, 1982). Demographic variables had only very modest influences on PANAS scores and the PANAS exhibited measurement invariance across demographic subgroups. The reliability of the PANAS was high, and the pattern of relationships between the PANAS and the DASS and HADS were consistent with tripartite theory. The PANAS is a reliable and valid measure of the constructs it was intended to assess, although the hypothesis of complete independence between PA and NA must be rejected. The utility of this measure is enhanced by the provision of large-scale normative data. Copyright 2004 The British Psychological Society
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            A comparison of the Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL) with four other generic utility instruments.

            As part of the validation of the Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL) instrument comparisons were made between five multiattribute utility (MAU) instruments, each purporting to measure health-related quality of life (HRQoL). These were the AQoL, the Canadian Health Utilities Index (HUI) 3, the Finnish 15D, the EQ-5D (formerly the EuroQoL) and the SF6D (derived from the SF-36). The paper compares absolute utility scores, instrument sensitivity, and incremental differences in measured utility between different instruments predicted by different individuals. The AQoL predicted utilities are similar to those from the HUI3 and EQ-5D. By contrast the 15D and SF6D predict systematically higher utilities, and the differences between individuals are significantly smaller. There is some evidence that the AQoL has greater sensitivity to health states than other instruments. It is concluded that at present no single MAU instrument can claim to be the 'gold standard', and that researchers should select an instrument sensitive to the health states they are investigating. Caution should be exercised in treating any of the instrument scores as representing a trade-off between length of life and HRQoL.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Reframing the evaluation of qualitative health research: reflections on a review of appraisal guidelines in the health sciences.

              In this article, we explore the form of evaluation put forward by guidelines used in the health sciences for appraising qualitative research and we begin to articulate an alternative posture. Most guidelines are derivative of the modes of assessment developed by clinical epidemiologists as part of the promotion of evidence-based medicine (EBM). They are predominantly proceduralist in orientation, equating quality with the proper execution of research techniques. We argue that this form of judgment assumes a fixed relationship between research practice and knowledge generated, and tends to over-simplify and standardize the complex and non-formulaic nature of qualitative inquiry. A concern with methods as objects of judgment in and of themselves restricts the reader's field of vision to the research process and diverts attention away from the analytic content of the research. We propose an alternative 'substantive' perspective that focuses on the analysis put forward, and regards methods as resources for engaging with and understanding the substantive findings and topic of inquiry. An important challenge is to find a way to embody such a form of judgment in practical assessment tools.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Activities, Adaptation & Aging
                Activities, Adaptation & Aging
                Informa UK Limited
                0192-4788
                1544-4368
                October 2013
                October 2013
                : 37
                : 4
                : 273-290
                Article
                10.1080/01924788.2013.845716
                a70001cc-318c-4b66-9000-cb85831f5725
                © 2013
                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article