Learning Objective #1: Identify the most reliable of four tools tested in this study of the oldest-old

Learning Objective #2: Compare the differences in reliabilities of the four tools in persons 80-90 years old and 91 years and older

---

The specific aim for this study was to establish the reliability of the Health Promoting Lifestyle Profile II (HPLP II), Incentive-Health Promotion Scale, Self-Motivation Inventory, and Barriers to Health Promoting Activities for Disabled Persons Scale in the 80 years and older age group. Design: A methodological (instrument testing) design was used. Sample/Setting: Quota sampling (n=52) of study subjects was obtained through investigator-made and locally recruited volunteer contacts with management staff of senior centers, assisted living centers, churches and the Centenarian Club of Oklahoma. Conceptual Framework: The Health Promotion Model (1996) was used. Methods: Descriptive statistics were performed. Coefficient alpha, internal consistency reliability coefficients were computed. Pearson r correlation coefficients using two week test-retest reliability was determined. Findings: The HPLP II was the only tool found to have reliabilities > .80 in the oldest-old which is the minimum acceptable reliability for established tools. Further comparisons of the two age groups revealed that the four tools are much more reliable in the 80 to 90 age group. The reliabilities of the 80-90 year old subjects more closely approximate the reliabilities in the literature. Implication: With the exponential growth of older Americans, the pendulum is swinging from a focus on management of chronic illness to examination of the impact of health promotion for the oldest-old. Conclusion: In order to evaluate the outcomes of health promotion interventions targeted at this rapidly growing group, reliable measures must be used and those that are less reliable, modifications of the tools can be made.