Consumer-Reported Quality Indicators for Publicly-Funded Home and Community-Based Services: Development and Validation
Clicks: 9
ID: 319764
2026
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This
article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score —
reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
Reader Engagement
Steady Performance
2.4
/100
9 views
2 readers
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
SteadyRanked #35 of 155 articles by views in the gerontologist
Most read
Least read
Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 155 in total.
Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet mintedCreate a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.
5
SUSD
one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Consumer-reported measures are important quality indicators for assuring person-centeredness in home and community-based services (HCBS). However, administrative data commonly used to assess HCBS quality often lacks consumer-reported measures. The National Core Indicators-Aging and Disability (NCI-AD) Adult Consumer Survey (ACS) presents an opportunity to address this gap. We analyzed data from the NCI-AD ACS to develop and validate novel consumer-reported quality indicators for older adult consumers of publicly funded HCBS. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We applied exploratory factor analyses to data from the 2018-2019 survey wave (n = 5,572 community-dwelling older consumers, age ≥65 years) and identified seven QIs. We confirmed the validity of these seven new QIs in two ways: (1) qualitatively through a technical expert panel (for face validity and contextualization) and (2) quantitatively, using confirmatory factor analyses in the 2017-2018 survey wave (n = 9,145 community-dwelling consumers, age ≥65 years). RESULTS: The seven newly developed and validated QIs included service satisfaction (3 survey items, Cronbach's alpha = 0.89, McDonald's omega = 0.90), staff quality (5 survey items, alpha = 0.86, omega = 0.89), environmental safety (4 survey items, alpha = 0.81, omega = 0.89), service decision-making (5 survey items, alpha = 0.79, omega = 0.86), daily life decision-making (5 survey items, alpha = 0.73, omega = 0.81), community inclusion (5 survey items, alpha = 0.78, omega = 0.86), and overall health and quality of life (4 survey items, alpha = 0.63, omega = 0.70). In exploratory descriptive analyses, for some domains we found differences in scores by dementia status and age. DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS: These seven new consumer-reported quality indicators can be used by researchers, service providers, and policy makers for evaluating and monitoring service quality and identifying modifiable targets for quality improvement in publicly funded HCBS.
| Reference Key |
openalex_W7167496588
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | Tetyana Shippee, Jack M. Wolf, Romil R Parikh, Benjamin Langworthy, Yinfei Duan, Stephanie Giordano, Eric Jutkowitz |
| Journal | the gerontologist |
| Year | 2026 |
| DOI |
10.1093/geront/gnag145
|
| URL | |
| Keywords | Keywords not found |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.