Background: Aging has determined a demographic shift in the world, which is considered a major societal achievement, and a challenge. Aging is primarily a subjective experience, shaped by factors such as gender and culture. There is a lack of instruments to assess attitudes to aging adequately. In addition, there is no instrument developed or validated in developing region contexts, so that the particularities of ageing in these areas are not included in the measures available. This paper aims to develop and validate a reliable attitude to aging instrument by combining classical psychometric approach and Rasch analysis. Methods: Pilot study and field trial are described in details. Statistical analysis included classic psychometric theory (EFA and CFA) and Rasch measurement model. The latter was applied to examine unidimensionality, response scale and item fit. Results: Sample was composed of 424 Brazilian old adults, which was compared to an international sample (n = 5238). The final instrument shows excellent psychometric performance (discriminant validity, confirmatory factor analysis and Rasch fit statistics). Rasch analysis indicated that modifications in the response scale and item deletions improved the initial solution derived from the classic approach. Conclusion: The combination of classic and modern psychometric theories in a complementary way is fruitful for development and validation of instruments. The construction of a reliable Brazilian Attitudes to Aging Questionnaire is important for assessing cultural specificities of aging in a transcultural perspective and can be applied in international cross-cultural investigations running less risk of cultural bias. © 2008 Chachamovich et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.
Chachamovich, E., Fleck, M. P., Trentini, C. M., Laidlaw, K., & Power, M. J. (2008). Development and validation of the Brazilian version of the attitudes to aging questionnaire (AAQ): An example of merging classical psychometric theory and the rasch measurement model. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 6. https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-6-6