Background Healthy aging is a key public health priority in Hong Kong. The Healthy Aging Questionnaire, originally developed and validated in Singapore for older adults, is a concise tool for assessing multiple dimensions of healthy aging. Objectives This study examines the psychometric performance of the Chinese version of the HAQ in the Hong Kong adult population, assessing validity, reliability, and factor structure. Research Designs and Methods A cross‐sectional study was conducted from October to December 2024 using convenience sampling to recruit participants aged 18 and above from various communities in Hong Kong through online and offline methods. Exploratory factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis were performed to determine the factor structure. Cronbach’s alpha, split‐half reliability, and intraclass correlation coefficient were used to assess reliability. Results The Chinese version of the HAQ demonstrated face validity and content validity. An exploratory factor analysis confirmed a three‐factor structure, comprising physical/mental and sense of purpose, engagement in functional activities, and engagement in social and physical activities, with a cumulative variance contribution of 58.178%. The instrument showed Cronbach’s alpha was 0.827, split‐half reliability was 0.697, and an intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.630. Confirmatory factor analysis validated the three‐factor structure. Discussion The Chinese version of the HAQ is a valid and reliable tool for assessing healthy aging in the Hong Kong adult population. Implications The robust psychometric properties support its use in research and practice to evaluate and promote healthy aging. Future studies should validate the HAQ in longitudinal research.
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Jed Montayre
Wenjing Ning
Ka Man Carman Leung
Journal of Aging Research
Hong Kong Polytechnic University
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Montayre et al. (Thu,) studied this question.
www.synapsesocial.com/papers/69d896046c1944d70ce07375 — DOI: https://doi.org/10.1155/jare/3632426
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: