Physical Activity Behavior Scale for Older Adults

📜
Abstract

The Physical activity Behavior Scale for Older adults is a specialized psychometric instrument designed to evaluate the psychological and cognitive drivers behind exercise habits in geriatric populations. While traditional assessments often quantify the frequency, duration, or intensity of physical exertion, this tool shifts the focus toward the underlying motivational processes that precede the behavior itself. By isolating these psychological determinants, the scale provides a nuanced understanding of why Older adults choose to engage in or avoid Physical activity.

Developed in response to the growing global need for effective healthy aging interventions, the instrument is grounded in the Theory of Planned Behavior. It systematically measures an individual's attitudes toward exercise, the social pressures they perceive regarding Physical activity, their confidence in overcoming barriers, and their ultimate intention to remain active. This comprehensive approach allows researchers and healthcare professionals to identify specific psychosocial barriers that might prevent an older adult from meeting recommended activity guidelines.

Ultimately, this scale represents a significant advancement in health psychology and gerontology. By offering a reliable method to quantify behavioral intentions and their precursors, it equips practitioners with the data necessary to design highly targeted, personalized interventions. Rather than simply prescribing exercise, clinicians can use this tool to foster the intrinsic motivation and social support structures required for sustainable, long-term Physical activity in Older adults.

🏷
Keywords
Physical activity
Older adults
Theory of Planned Behavior
psychometrics
gerontology
health behavior
Measurement invariance

📊 Psychometric Scorecard

Items Count
19
Structure
Multidimensional
Fit Index (CFI)
0.968
Validation Country
📍 China

Authors

👤 Yang Li
🏛 School of Nursing, North Henan Medical University, Xinxiang City, China

👤 Ruoyu Wang
🏛 School of Health and Nursing, Zhengzhou Health College, Zhengzhou City, China

👤 Xilin Zhang
🏛 School of Nursing, Henan Medical University, Xinxiang City, China

👤 Xiaoyang Hu
🏛 School of Nursing, Henan Medical University, Xinxiang City, China

👤 Zhiying Liu
🏛 Operating Room Nurse, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Henan Medical University, Xinxiang City, China

👤 Jinhua Zhang
✉ [email protected]
🏛 School of Nursing, North Henan Medical University, Xinxiang City, China

Purpose

In the realm of geriatric health, promoting Physical activity is a cornerstone of managing chronic illness and preserving functional independence. However, a critical gap exists in our measurement toolkit: most established instruments, such as the Global Physical activity Questionnaire, are designed to audit behavioral outcomes rather than decode the decision-making processes that lead to those outcomes. This scale was explicitly developed to bridge that gap by providing a validated measure of the psychological antecedents of exercise in older populations.

For researchers and clinicians, understanding the 'why' is just as important as measuring the 'what.' Older adults face unique, multifaceted barriers to exercise, ranging from multimorbidity to social isolation. By utilizing this scale, practitioners can pinpoint exactly where a patient's motivation breaks down—whether it is a lack of perceived social support, negative attitudes toward exertion, or a low sense of physical capability. This granular insight is essential for moving beyond generic public health advice and crafting bespoke, psychologically informed interventions that effectively promote active aging.

Construct

The theoretical architecture of this scale is firmly rooted in Icek Ajzen's Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB), a premier framework in health psychology for predicting deliberate behavior. The instrument operationalizes four distinct but interconnected constructs. The first, Behavioral Attitude, captures the individual's cognitive evaluation of exercise, specifically assessing whether they perceive Physical activity as beneficial and enriching to their daily life. The second construct, Subjective Norm, evaluates the influence of the individual's social ecosystem, measuring the degree to which they feel encouraged by family and friends to remain active.

The third dimension, Perceived Behavioral Control, is particularly crucial for Older adults; it gauges their self-efficacy and perceived access to necessary resources, such as time, facilities, and physical capability. Finally, Behavioral Intention serves as the proximal predictor of actual behavior, reflecting the individual's concrete plans and readiness to engage in regular exercise. By isolating these four dimensions, the scale provides a comprehensive map of the cognitive landscape that precedes Physical activity, intentionally excluding actual behavioral outcomes to maintain a pure focus on psychological determinants.

Validity

Establishing the validity of a new psychometric tool requires a multifaceted approach, and this scale demonstrates robust evidence across several domains. Initially, content validity was secured through rigorous expert consultation, yielding an excellent Scale-Level Content Validity Index (S-CVI/Ave) of 0.915, which indicates strong consensus among geriatric and psychological specialists regarding the relevance of the items. Furthermore, cognitive interviews with Older adults ensured face validity and cultural appropriateness, leading to the simplification of abstract terminology to better suit diverse literacy levels.

Construct validity was thoroughly evaluated using advanced factor analytic techniques. The researchers also conducted comprehensive Measurement invariance testing, a critical step often overlooked in scale development. The results confirmed configural, metric, scalar, and strict invariance across both gender and age groups. In practical terms, this means the scale measures the psychological constructs identically regardless of whether the respondent is a 62-year-old man or an 80-year-old woman, allowing for highly accurate demographic comparisons without the risk of measurement bias.

Reliability

The reliability of the instrument was optimized through a meticulous item analysis process designed to maximize internal consistency. During the refinement phase, researchers evaluated the performance of each item using Critical Ratios and Corrected Item-Total Correlations (CITC). Items that failed to discriminate effectively between high and low scorers, or those that exhibited weak correlations with the overall scale score (specifically those with a CITC below 0.30), were systematically flagged for removal.

By strategically deleting items that compromised the scale's cohesion, the developers significantly enhanced the overall internal consistency of the final 19-item version. This rigorous purification process ensures that the remaining items within each subscale reliably measure their intended theoretical constructs with minimal error variance. Consequently, researchers can be confident that the scores derived from this instrument represent stable and dependable reflections of the Older adults' psychological states regarding Physical activity.

Factor Analysis

The structural integrity of the scale was examined through a two-step factor analytic procedure, representing the gold standard in psychometric validation. Initially, an Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) utilizing principal component analysis with promax rotation was conducted. This analysis successfully extracted four distinct factors that perfectly mirrored the theoretical dimensions of the Theory of Planned Behavior, collectively explaining an impressive 69.26% of the total variance. All retained items demonstrated robust primary loadings exceeding 0.70, indicating strong associations with their respective latent constructs.

To cross-validate this structure, a Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was subsequently performed on an independent sample. The hypothesized four-factor model exhibited excellent fit to the empirical data. Key fit indices provided compelling evidence of structural adequacy, with the Comparative Fit Index (CFI) reaching 0.968 and the Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) at 0.963, both well above the stringent 0.95 threshold. Additionally, error metrics were highly favorable, including an RMSEA of 0.049 and an SRMR of 0.039. Standardized factor loadings in the CFA ranged from 0.705 to 0.855, further confirming that the items are highly representative of their underlying psychological domains.

Subscales

Subscale Items Description
Behavioral Attitude 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8 Measures the individual's positive or negative evaluation of performing Physical activity and its perceived benefits.
Subjective Norm 14, 15, 16 Assesses the perceived social pressure and encouragement from significant others, such as family and friends, to engage in Physical activity.
Perceived Behavioral Control 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 Evaluates the individual's perception of their capability, available time, and access to resources necessary for Physical activity.
Behavioral Intention 3, 18, 24, 25, 26 Captures the individual's willingness, planning, and readiness to engage in regular Physical activity in the near future.

Instrument

Test Type Self-report questionnaire
Format 19 items
Language Chinese
Population Older adults
Age Group 60 years and older
Administration Self-administered or interviewer-administered (read aloud option available)

Physical Activity Behavior Scale for Older Adults Items

📋 Items are currently not available

The individual items of this scale are not publicly available. Researchers interested in using this instrument should contact the original authors directly to request the scale materials.

Sample

The study included 451 valid responses from Older adults (effective response rate: 96.57%). The sample consisted of 205 males (45.5%) and 246 females (54.5%). Age distribution included 249 participants aged 60-69 years (55.2%) and 202 participants aged 70 years and above (44.8%). The sample was split for analysis, with 152 cases used for EFA and 299 cases for CFA.

📄
Cite This Paper

Yang Li, Ruoyu Wang, Xilin Zhang, Xiaoyang Hu, Zhiying Liu, Jinhua Zhang (2026). Physical activity Behavior Scale for Older adults. BMC geriatrics. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-026-07002-y

📄 Download Full-Text PDF

📚
References
44 references
  1. Su B, Li D, Xie J, Wang Y, Wu X, Li J, et al. Chronic disease in china: geographic and socioeconomic determinants among persons aged 60 and older. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2023;24(2):206–e2125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamda.2022.10.002. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamda.2022.10.002
  2. Caspersen CJ, Powell KE, Christenson GM. Physical activity, exercise, and physical fitness: definitions and distinctions for health-related research. Public Health Rep. 1985;100(2):126–31. https://doi.org/10.2307/20056429. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.2307/20056429
  3. Piercy KL, Troiano RP, Ballard RM, Carlson SA, Fulton JE, Galuska DA, et al. The Physical activity guidelines for Americans. JAMA. 2018;320(19):2020. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2018.14854. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2018.14854
  4. Izquierdo M, Duque G, Morley JE. Physical activity guidelines for older people: knowledge gaps and future directions. Lancet Healthy Longev. 2021;2(6):e380–3. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2666-7568(21)00079-9. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1016/S2666-7568(21)00079-9
  5. Qiu Y, Fernández-García B, Lehmann HI, Li G, Kroemer G, López-Otín C, et al. Exercise sustains the hallmarks of health. J Sport Health Sci. 2023;12(1):8–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jshs.2022.10.003. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jshs.2022.10.003
  6. Galle SA, Deijen JB, Milders MV, et al. The effects of a moderate Physical activity intervention on physical fitness and cognition in healthy elderly with low levels of Physical activity: a randomized controlled trial. Alzheimers Res Ther. 2023;15(1):12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13195-022-01123-3. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1186/s13195-022-01123-3
  7. Eckstrom E, Neukam S, Kalin L, Wright J. Physical activity and healthy aging. Clin Geriatr Med. 2020;36(4):671–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cger.2020.06.009. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cger.2020.06.009
  8. An HY, Chen W, Wang CW, Yang HF, Huang WT, Fan SY. The relationships between Physical activity and life satisfaction and happiness among young, middle-aged, and Older adults. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(13):4817. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17134817. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17134817
  9. Nuzum H, Stickel A, Corona M, Zeller M, Melrose RJ, Wilkins SS. Potential benefits of Physical activity in MCI and dementia. Behav Neurol. 2020;2020:1–10. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/7807856. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/7807856
  10. Vanderlinden J, Boen F, Van Uffelen JGZ. Effects of Physical activity programs on sleep outcomes in Older adults: A systematic review. Int J Behav Nutr Phy. 2020;17(1):11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12966-020-0913-3. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12966-020-0913-3
  11. Strain T, Flaxman S, Guthold R, Semenova E, Cowan M, Riley LM, et al. National, regional, and global trends in insufficient Physical activity among adults from 2000 to 2022: A pooled analysis of 507 population-based surveys with 5·7 million participants. Lancet Glob Health. 2024;12(8):e1232–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2214-109X(24)00150-5. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1016/S2214-109X(24)00150-5
  12. Hallal PC, Andersen LB, Bull FC, Guthold R, Haskell W, Ekelund U. Global Physical activity levels: surveillance progress, pitfalls, and prospects. Lancet. 2012;380(9838):247–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60646-1. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60646-1
  13. Spiteri K, Broom D, Bekhet AH, de Caro JX, Laventure B, Grafton K. Barriers and motivators of Physical activity participation in Middle-aged and Older-adults – A systematic review. J Aging Phys Act. 2019;27(4):929–44. https://doi.org/10.1123/japa.2018-0343. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1123/japa.2018-0343
  14. Maslow AL, Reed JA, Price AE, Hooker SP. Associations between sociodemographic characteristics and perceptions of the built environment with the frequency, type, and duration of Physical activity among trail users. Prev Chronic Dis. 2012;9:E53. https://doi.org/10.5888/pcd9.110114. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.5888/pcd9.110114
  15. Kuzmik A, Boltz M, Kim K, Ma Y, Weng X, Wang L. Physical activity level and specific type of exercises among US middle-aged and Older adults: findings from the behavioral risk factor surveillance survey. J Phys Act Health. 2023;20(6):500–7. https://doi.org/10.1123/jpah.2022-0308. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1123/jpah.2022-0308
  16. Bull FC, Maslin TS, Armstrong T. Global Physical activity questionnaire (GPAQ): nine country reliability and validity study. J Phys Act Health. 2009;6(6):790–804. https://doi.org/10.1123/jpah.6.6.790. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1123/jpah.6.6.790
  17. Washburn RA, Smith KW, Jette AM, Janney CA. The Physical activity scale for the elderly (PASE): development and evaluation. J Clin Epidemiol. 1993;46(2):153–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/0895-4356(93)90053-4. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1016/0895-4356(93)90053-4
  18. Warburton DER. Health benefits of Physical activity: the evidence. Can Med Assoc J. 2006;174(6):801–9. https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.051351. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.051351
  19. DeVellis RF, Thorpe CT. Scale development: theory and applications. Sage; 2021. https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/scale-development/book269114.
  20. Prinsen CAC, Mokkink LB, Bouter LM, Alonso J, Patrick DL, De Vet HCW, et al. COSMIN guideline for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures. Qual Life Res. 2018;27(5):1147–57. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-018-1798-3. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-018-1798-3
  21. Ajzen I. The theory of planned behaviour: reactions and reflections. Psychol Health. 2011;26(9):1113–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/08870446.2011.613995. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1080/08870446.2011.613995
  22. Bosnjak M, Ajzen I, Schmidt P. The Theory of Planned Behavior: selected recent advances and applications. Eur J Psychol. 2020;16(3):352–6. https://doi.org/10.5964/ejop.v16i3.3107. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.5964/ejop.v16i3.3107
  23. Sussman R, Gifford R. Causality in the Theory of Planned Behavior. Personal Soc Psychol Bull. 2019;45(6):920–33. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167218801363. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167218801363
  24. Francis JJ, Eccles MP, Johnston M, Anne W. Constructing questionnaires based on the theory of planned behaviour: A manual for health services researchers. Centre for Health Services Research University of Newcastle Upon Tyne. 2004. https://openaccess.city.ac.uk/id/eprint/1735/.
  25. Li Q, Liu T, Zhang S. Development and psychometric validation of the illness perception assessment scale for gout patients. Chin J Nurs. 2023;58(07):836–42. https://doi.org/10.3761/j.issn.0254-1769.2023.07.010. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.3761/j.issn.0254-1769.2023.07.010
  26. Wang W, Liu Y, Deng X. Development, reliability, and validity testing of the human caring satisfaction evaluation scale for hospital emergency patients. J Nurs Sci. 2024;39(06):100–4. https://doi.org/10.3870/j.issn.1001-4152.2024.06.100. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.3870/j.issn.1001-4152.2024.06.100
  27. Comrey AL. Factor-analytic methods of scale development in personality and clinical psychology. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1988;56(5):754-761. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.56.5.754. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.56.5.754
  28. Yu HJ, Qiu J. Validation of the Physical activity scale for the elderly (PASE) in measuring Physical activity among Chinese Older adults. J Shanghai Univ Sport. 2014;38(5):45–9. https://doi.org/10.16099/j.cnki.jsus.2014.05.027. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.16099/j.cnki.jsus.2014.05.027
  29. Zhou C, Fang Y, Zheng E, Zhu L, Lu Y, Yin Z. Development and preliminary validation of a questionnaire on the care needs of family carers of older individuals with disabilities in china: A mixed methods study. BMC Geriatr. 2024;24(1):706. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-024-05294-6. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-024-05294-6
  30. Chen G, Zhang X, Chen Z, Yang S, Zheng J, Xiao H. Development and psychometric evaluation of the death risk perception scale for advanced cancer patients. BMC Palliat Care. 2024;23(1):136. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12904-024-01467-7. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12904-024-01467-7
  31. Wu ML. Questionnaire statistical analysis practice SPSS operation and application [M]. Chongqing, China: Chongqing University; 2010.
  32. Boateng GO, Neilands TB, Frongillo EA, Melgar-Quiñonez HR, Young SL. Best practices for developing and validating scales for Health, Social, and behavioral research: A primer. Front Public Health. 2018;6:149. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2018.00149. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2018.00149
  33. Wang YY. Theory, Methods, and operational examples of medical scale Preparation and evaluation (lst ed.) [M]. Beijing: Peking University Medical Press; 2020. https://www.pumpress.com.cn/home-shop/5845.html.
  34. Hu L, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Model: Multidiscip J. 1999;6(1):1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
  35. Chen FF. Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of Measurement invariance. Struct Equ Model: Multidiscip J. 2007;14(3):464–504. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510701301834. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510701301834
  36. Cheung GW, Rensvold RB. Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing Measurement invariance. Struct Equation Modeling: Multidisciplinary J. 2002;9(2):233–55. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0902-5. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0902-5
  37. Li C, Xin L. Evaluation methods for reliability and validity of questionnaires. Chin J Health Stat. 2008;25(5):541–4. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1002-3674.2008.05.034. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1002-3674.2008.05.034
  38. Koo TK, Li MY. A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. J Chiropr Med. 2016;15(2):155–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcm.2016.02.012. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcm.2016.02.012
  39. Rosenbaum PR. Criterion-related construct validity. Psychometrika. 1989;54(4):625–33. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02296400. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02296400
  40. Rahman MM, Gu D, Liang C, Rashid RM, Akter M. Effects of attitude, motivation, and eagerness for Physical activity among middle-aged and Older adults. J Healthc Eng. 2020;2020:1014891. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/1014891. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/1014891
  41. Steinhoff P, Reiner A. Physical activity and functional social support in community-dwelling Older adults: A scoping review. BMC Public Health. 2024;24(1):1355. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-024-18863-6. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-024-18863-6
  42. Godin G. Theories of reasoned action and planned behavior: usefulness for exercise promotion. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1994;26(11):1391–4. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1249/00005768-199411000-00014
  43. Sherrington C, Fairhall NJ, Wallbank GK, Tiedemann A, Michaleff ZA, Howard K, et al. Exercise for preventing falls in older people living in the community. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019;2019(1):CD012424. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD012424.pub2. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD012424.pub2
  44. Zhang X, Niu X, Wang M, Li Q, Feng H, Wang Y, et al. Association between Physical activity trajectories and successful aging in middle-aged and elderly Chinese individuals: A longitudinal study. BMC Public Health. 2025;25(1):1812. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-025-23021-7. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-025-23021-7

Cite this article

Mohammed looti (2026). Physical Activity Behavior Scale for Older Adults. PSYCHOLOGICAL SCALES. Retrieved from https://scales.arabpsychology.com/s/physical-activity-behavior-scale-for-older-adults/

Mohammed looti. "Physical Activity Behavior Scale for Older Adults." PSYCHOLOGICAL SCALES, 14 Aug. 2026, https://scales.arabpsychology.com/s/physical-activity-behavior-scale-for-older-adults/.

Mohammed looti. "Physical Activity Behavior Scale for Older Adults." PSYCHOLOGICAL SCALES, 2026. https://scales.arabpsychology.com/s/physical-activity-behavior-scale-for-older-adults/.

Mohammed looti (2026) 'Physical Activity Behavior Scale for Older Adults', PSYCHOLOGICAL SCALES. Available at: https://scales.arabpsychology.com/s/physical-activity-behavior-scale-for-older-adults/.

[1] Mohammed looti, "Physical Activity Behavior Scale for Older Adults," PSYCHOLOGICAL SCALES, vol. X, no. Y, ص Z-Z, August, 2026.

Mohammed looti. Physical Activity Behavior Scale for Older Adults. PSYCHOLOGICAL SCALES. 2026;vol(issue):pages.

Related terms:

  1. Resilience Scale for Community-Dwelling Older Adults
  2. Physical Activity/Healthy Food Efficacy Scale for Children (PAHFE-C)
  3. Physical Activity and Sport Anxiety Scale (PASAS)
  4. Physical Activity Scale for the Elderly
  5. Saint Louis Environment and Physical Activity Instrument
  6. School Physical Activity Policy Assessment (S-PAPA)
  7. Evaluative Frailty Index for Physical Activity
  8. International Physical Activity Questionnaire / Internationale Vragenlijst in verband met Fysieke Activiteiten
  9. Zutphen Physical Activity Questionnaire
  10. Early Childhood Educators Confidence in Outdoor Movement, Physical Activity, Sedentary and Screen Behaviors Questionnaire (ECE-COMPASS)
× Figure
PDF
Scroll to Top