Journal of Aging and Physical Activity, 2014, 22, 301 http://dx.doi.org/10.1123/JAPA.2014-0133 © 2014 Human Kinetics, Inc.
Official Journal of ICAPA www.JAPA-Journal.com EDITORIAL
An Argument for a Developmental Approach in Studying Older Adults’ Physical Activity Since the Journal of Aging and Physical Activity (JAPA) began publication in 1993, the central mission has been to publish articles on “the relationship between physical activity and the aging process.” We have fulfilled that mission by requiring that papers submitted to the journal examine physical activity in participants with a mean age of 60 or 65. We have recently broadened the physical activity component of the mission, acknowledging the need to examine sedentary behavior, as well as alternative modes of physical activity such as Tai Chi. I’m pleased to say we have had a number of important submissions on these topics and will continue to expand our notion of what constitutes physical activity. Now, I’d like to turn our attention to the matter of the aging process. My argument is that we need to know much more about differences among older adults; to use the vernacular of developmentalists, we need to understand intraindividual change (change within older adults over time) and interindividual differences (differences among older adults). We know the older adult population is growing, and growing older. Thus, an argument can be made for the need to examine current middle-aged adults, as they are likely to not only survive into older adulthood but also, more and more, survive to 100 years and beyond. Which brings up my main point. If we agree that older adulthood begins at 60, or even 65, then we are including a group of individuals who potentially span 40 or more years. Since older adults are considered the most diverse of any age group (due to multiple trajectories of social, biological, cognitive, and emotional factors), it seems unwise to assume that 50-, 60-, 70-, and 80-yearolds have the same determinants or barriers to physical activity or to expect them to react the same way to interventions. Although there has been some attention in JAPA and other journals to differences between the “young old” and the “oldest old” (for example, with regard to balance), it is far more common to see articles with age ranges 30 years or more, often spanning
middle and older adulthood, with no attention given to potential differences within those groups. That begs the question: Are we missing important differences within and between older adults? For example, are the correlates of exercise consistent across the older adult age range? Or, do 60-year-olds respond the same to an intervention as 80-year-olds? Those who study adult development would respond that differences are likely, although it is important to say that a developmental approach assumes that age matters, rather than saying that age causes differences among groups. Thus, our JAPA editorial board recently discussed the need for authors to take a more developmental perspective when describing the participants in their research studies. That is, we will encourage authors to describe why a certain age group was selected (if that is not already clear), particularly if the age range covers several established age periods. In cases where samples are large enough, we may ask authors to run analyses to see if differences exist between and among older adult subgroups, if there is theoretical or empirical evidence to do so. Existing theory and research show that we continue to change and adapt as we grow older, so our analyses should match those theories. A system for identifying older adult subgroups has been forwarded by Spirduso, Francis, and MacRae (2005): They identify individuals 65–74 as the “young old,” those 75–84 as “old,” 85–99 as “old-old,” and 100+ as the “oldest old.” This seems simple enough, and we encourage authors to adopt this verbiage. In conclusion, it is time to stop treating older adults as a homogeneous block. We must consider the variability across individuals, as well as investigate in more detail the capacity for an older adult to change over those years. I believe this will help move the field forward. I look forward to seeing submissions that embrace a developmental approach and, in so doing, acknowledge the complexity that is older adulthood.
This editorial is based in part on a presentation given in July 2013 at the seminar “Ageing and Physical Activity: Rethinking Approaches,” sponsored by the European Centre for Environment & Human Health’s funded project “Moving Stories,” led by Dr. Cassandra Phoenix.
References
Diane E. Whaley, University of Virginia Editor in Chief
Spirduso, W., Francis, K., & MacRae, P. (2005). Physical dimensions of aging (2nd ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
301
Official Journal of ICAPA www.JAPA-Journal.com EDITORIAL
An Argument for a Developmental Approach in Studying Older Adults’ Physical Activity Since the Journal of Aging and Physical Activity (JAPA) began publication in 1993, the central mission has been to publish articles on “the relationship between physical activity and the aging process.” We have fulfilled that mission by requiring that papers submitted to the journal examine physical activity in participants with a mean age of 60 or 65. We have recently broadened the physical activity component of the mission, acknowledging the need to examine sedentary behavior, as well as alternative modes of physical activity such as Tai Chi. I’m pleased to say we have had a number of important submissions on these topics and will continue to expand our notion of what constitutes physical activity. Now, I’d like to turn our attention to the matter of the aging process. My argument is that we need to know much more about differences among older adults; to use the vernacular of developmentalists, we need to understand intraindividual change (change within older adults over time) and interindividual differences (differences among older adults). We know the older adult population is growing, and growing older. Thus, an argument can be made for the need to examine current middle-aged adults, as they are likely to not only survive into older adulthood but also, more and more, survive to 100 years and beyond. Which brings up my main point. If we agree that older adulthood begins at 60, or even 65, then we are including a group of individuals who potentially span 40 or more years. Since older adults are considered the most diverse of any age group (due to multiple trajectories of social, biological, cognitive, and emotional factors), it seems unwise to assume that 50-, 60-, 70-, and 80-yearolds have the same determinants or barriers to physical activity or to expect them to react the same way to interventions. Although there has been some attention in JAPA and other journals to differences between the “young old” and the “oldest old” (for example, with regard to balance), it is far more common to see articles with age ranges 30 years or more, often spanning
middle and older adulthood, with no attention given to potential differences within those groups. That begs the question: Are we missing important differences within and between older adults? For example, are the correlates of exercise consistent across the older adult age range? Or, do 60-year-olds respond the same to an intervention as 80-year-olds? Those who study adult development would respond that differences are likely, although it is important to say that a developmental approach assumes that age matters, rather than saying that age causes differences among groups. Thus, our JAPA editorial board recently discussed the need for authors to take a more developmental perspective when describing the participants in their research studies. That is, we will encourage authors to describe why a certain age group was selected (if that is not already clear), particularly if the age range covers several established age periods. In cases where samples are large enough, we may ask authors to run analyses to see if differences exist between and among older adult subgroups, if there is theoretical or empirical evidence to do so. Existing theory and research show that we continue to change and adapt as we grow older, so our analyses should match those theories. A system for identifying older adult subgroups has been forwarded by Spirduso, Francis, and MacRae (2005): They identify individuals 65–74 as the “young old,” those 75–84 as “old,” 85–99 as “old-old,” and 100+ as the “oldest old.” This seems simple enough, and we encourage authors to adopt this verbiage. In conclusion, it is time to stop treating older adults as a homogeneous block. We must consider the variability across individuals, as well as investigate in more detail the capacity for an older adult to change over those years. I believe this will help move the field forward. I look forward to seeing submissions that embrace a developmental approach and, in so doing, acknowledge the complexity that is older adulthood.
This editorial is based in part on a presentation given in July 2013 at the seminar “Ageing and Physical Activity: Rethinking Approaches,” sponsored by the European Centre for Environment & Human Health’s funded project “Moving Stories,” led by Dr. Cassandra Phoenix.
References
Diane E. Whaley, University of Virginia Editor in Chief
Spirduso, W., Francis, K., & MacRae, P. (2005). Physical dimensions of aging (2nd ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
301
