Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Mar;41(3):763-768.
doi: 10.1177/07334648211015459. Epub 2021 Jun 9.

Increasing the Power of Intergenerational Programs: Advancing an Evaluation Tool

Shannon E Jarrott  1 , Shelbie G Turner  2 , Jill Juris Naar  3 , Lisa M Juckett  1 , Rachel M Scrivano  1
Affiliations

Increasing the Power of Intergenerational Programs: Advancing an Evaluation Tool

Shannon E Jarrott et al. J Appl Gerontol. 2022 Mar.

Abstract

Intergenerational practitioners responding to a 2018 national survey identified a need for evidence-informed evaluation tools to measure program impact. The Best Practices (BP) Checklist, a 14-item (yes/no) measure assessing the extent to which an intergenerational program session maintained effective intergenerational strategies, may help meet this need. Yet, researchers have not validated the measure. In this study, we begin the empirical validation process by completing an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) of the BP Checklist to offer insight into possible item reduction and an underlying latent factor structure. Using BP Checklist data from 132 intergenerational activities, we found a 13-item, 3-factor structure, reflecting dimensions of: (a) pairing intergenerational participants, (b) person-centered strategies (e.g., selecting activities reflecting participants' interests), and (c) staff knowledge of participants. Our study represents a foundational step toward optimizing intergenerational program evaluation, thereby enhancing programming quality.

Keywords: evaluation; exploratory factor analysis; implementation; intergenerational program; intergenerational relations; quantitative methods.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Declaration of Conflicting Interests: The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Eigenvalues from the 14-factor EFA (n = 132).
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Allport G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Addison-Wesley.
    1. Bernard M. M., Fruhwirth M., Brooks M., Oakley K., Wang X., Ouechni K., Joanson F. (2011). Intergenerational telementoring for the promotion of social relationships. Journal of Gerontechnology, 10(1), 38–50. 10.4017/gt.2011.10.01.005.00 - DOI
    1. Breck B. M., Dennis C. B., Leedahl S. N. (2018). Implementing reverse mentoring to address social isolation among older adults. Journal of Gerontological Social Work, 16(5), 513–525. 10.1080/01634372.2018.1448030 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Bunting S. R., Lax G. A. (2019). Program profile: A service-learning model for intergenerational conversation about science and current events between long-term care residents and university students: Case study. Journal of Intergenerational Relationships, 17(2), 234–249. 10.1080/15350770.2019.1586041 - DOI
    1. Butts D. M., Jarrott S. E. (2021, April 5). The power of proximity: Co-locating childcare and eldercare programs. Stanford Social Innovation Review. https://ssir.org/articles/entry/the_power_of_proximity_co_locating_child...

Publication types