Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University

1. Factor Analysis of a Community Capacity Index for Shared Site Intergenerational Programs: Good Neighbors are Hard to Find Shannon E. Jarrott, Ph.D., Nancy Brossoie, M.S., & Jay A. Mancini, Ph.D. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University INTRODUCTION SCALE VALIDITY & RELIABILITY • Families seeking elder care may choose a shared site intergenerational community (SSIC), where young & old receive services at a single site.1 • SSIC benefits include enhanced participant behavior & affect.2 However, sustainability challenges most programs. • Contact theory3 tenets inform effective intergenerational (IG) contact, including: (a) Support from stakeholders and tradition, (b) Collaboration on a common goal, (c) Equal group status (i.e., a strengths perspective), and (d) Opportunity for friendship. • Contact theory takes a community approach to fostering positive inter-group contact. We used community capacity4 & social organization literature,5 with contact theory, to build community at SSICs and support sustainability. • We created the SSIC Community Capacity Scale to measure SSIC community elements. Following a pilot study, we field tested the survey. Results and next steps are presented here. • Factors explaining community capacity within an SSIC were identified as collective competence, shared responsibility, shared values, sense of neighborhood, attitude, interactions of direct care, and program pedagogy. • Inter-item correlations indicated most items were correlated within & across factors. We tested construct validity with a principal components analysis (varimax rotation), allowing items to freely correlate & attach to a loading. With Eigenvalues set >1, items that did not load above .50 or with more than .15 difference between items were removed from the item pool. Eleven items were removed using these criteria. • Internal consistency reliability was measured using Cronbach’s alpha coefficient on each factor as well as the pool of remaining items. Items not strongly correlated with items in the factor were removed. Alpha scores > .60 were considered acceptable representations of a factor & retained for analysis. • We conducted a final review of construct validity. Seven factors emerged with Eigenvalues >1; 29 items clearly loaded at levels > .50 onto 7 factors. FACTOR LOADINGS & INTERNAL CONSISTENCY Shared Responsibility α =.92 Likelihood staff from other program would… Assist a wandering client .83 Help an agitated or unattended client .88 Deter a client who is disrobing .80 Help an injured client .83 Help a client exposed to a safety risk .85 Report suspected abuse or neglect .83 Pedagogy α =.65 Compatible care/teaching approaches .82 Clients are safe when visiting IG neighbors .56 Comfortable visiting IG neighbors .61 Collective Competence α =.92 How often at the SSIC have you… Joined w/ others to solve problems .81 Felt you could make a difference .89 Felt close to others .89 Felt you belonged .84 Showed concern for others .78 Found circumstances similar to IG partners .71 Talked with neighbors about IG solutions .78 Caregiving α =.68 Provide hygiene assistance to client .72 Provide 1-to-1 client assistance with task .83 Neighboring α =.67 SSIC neighbors get along .60 SSIC neighbors are willing to help .75 Neighbors collaborate on IG .71 Neighbors value IG relationships .60 Attitude α =.70 Felt welcome to borrow materials .74 Celebrate neighbors’ triumphs .63 Know IG neighbors & are friendly .63 Shared Values α =.68 Neighbors can learn from each other .67 IG is age-appropriate for young/old .81 Neighbors are welcome to visit .65 SCALE DEVELOPMENT • Data gathered from interviews & focus groups over three years with SSIC stakeholders revealed themes to building intergenerational communities related to needs for training, administrative support, & trust & reciprocity among staff, the value of IG relationships, & common values . • We used our findings, other IG research, and social organization literature to develop a scale to measure sense of community at SSICs. • The survey consisted of 40 5-point Likert items to maximize variance. Items were reverse coded as needed so higher scores were more positive. • Procedures & Sample • Surveys were distributed by the PI or program administrator at the sites. Surveys were returned individually to the PI to protect confidentiality. • 193 administrators, staff, and students at 8 SSICs completed the scale. • Respondents included administrators and direct care providers. • 137 (71%) worked with kids, 51 ( 26%) with elders, & 5 (3%) were IG staff. • Respondents’ ages ranged from 18-76 (32% were 20 years old). • 72 % were white, non-Hispanic. • Instrument Scoring • Missing cases were imputed using series mean scores for each item. • Incidence of imputation ranged from 0-9 cases across each item. CONCLUSIONS • Social organization and community capacity literature provide insight to the unique community of SSICs. • Factor analysis of the SSIC Community Capacity Scale reveals that theoretical concepts identified for the study are successfully represented in the scale. • Items related to contact theory tenets reflect reciprocity, shared values, shared responsibility, attitudes, collective competence, shared pedagogy, neighborliness, and direct care tasks associated with SSICs that are critical to building and sustaining community. • Factor scores can be used to build on strengths and identify areas that challenge community building and sustainability at SSICs. Contact theory informs ideas for remedying low factor scores. For example if scores on collective competence are low, administrators might work to create infrastructure that fosters collaboration, such as partnering staff from each program to meet regularly to plan and discuss IG programming at the SSIC. • The SSIC Community Capacity Scale may be used by SSICs for outcome and process data as they work to strengthen and sustain their unique programs. Higher scores on the scale may be the desired outcome of infrastructure building, for example. Scale scores may also help explain other outcomes, such as level of engagement and enjoyment of IG programming by participants or achievement of other sustainability indicators. 6 • A next step is to obtain a more balanced sample of child and adult care staff, along with more information on respondents’ IG involvement. • Further measure development might include revisiting discarded items (n=11) to determine if rewording them and adding them back to the scale helps to further explain sense of community at SSICs. An expert panel of researchers and practitioners from IG programs could address this issue. • The creation of scales appropriate for IG programs with demonstrated psychometric value is critical to advancing the field of IG research and practice. Department of Human Development (0416) Blacksburg, VA 24061 sjarrott@vt.edu 540-231-5434 Presented at the 59th Annual Scientific Meeting, Gerontological Society of America, Dallas, Texas, November 18, 2006