group discussion essay pdf

• Corpus ID: 60924901

Effective Group Discussion: Theory and Practice

• G. Galanes , Katherine H. Adams
• Published 1967

10 Citations

Team toolbox: activities & suggestions for facilitating project teams, evaluation of adaptive teamwork system based upon individual differences in culture dimension (individualism - collectivism), enhancing high-tech product development through communication, attitudes toward teamwork: are iranian university students ready for the workplace, the salutogenic orientation: children's sense of coherence and hopeful thinking in education of children and adolescents, strategi penyampaian informasi konservasi ekosistem laut dan pesisir, parental interpersonal conflict resolution styles according to parents' gender and level of education, ideointi ryhmässä luovan alan työyhteisössä, intercultural communication in information systems development teams, ryhmien vuorovaikutus ja päätöksenteko verkkopelissä, related papers.

Showing 1 through 3 of 0 Related Papers

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

How to … Conduct a Focus Group Discussion (FGD). Methodological Manual

Related Papers

Youth Employment in Bangladesh

Dr. Fahmida Khatun

archana hjkklkg

Health Sociology …

Shane A Thomas

Nurse Researcher

... Lane, P., McKenna, HP, Ryan, AA and Fleming, P. (2001) Focus Group Methodology. NurseResearcher, 8 (3). pp. 45-59. Full text not available from this repository. URL: http:// nurseresearcher.rcnpublishing.co.uk/archive/browse-by-year/2001/3. Item Type: Journal article. ...

AORN Journal

Denise Cote-arsenault

Hilde Jakobsen

This paper examines some methodological issues that arise when conducting focus group discussions in the majority world (developing countries), and describes one way of addressing them. While the method is widely used in the majority world, the methodological literature on how to moderate focus groups builds on accumulated experiences of how conversations work in the minority world (developed countries). This paper suggests a way to apply the method more rigorously in a majority-world context. It draws on a trial-and-error innovation process spanning 40 discussions in Tanzania. Ensuring quality in data generation required thorough attention to issues of alterity, positionality and power. These issues are common challenges to methodological rigour when researching across difference in the majority world. But this paper contends that if used correctly and to its strengths, the focus group method can indeed address and solve these challenges. This also entails creating appropriate conditions for interaction among focus groups participants.

British journal of nursing (Mark Allen Publishing)

The use of focus group interviews as a means of qualitative data collection has gained popularity in health service research in recent years. Despite their popularity, analysing qualitative data-particularly focus-group interviews-poses a challenge to most researchers. This article follows the authors' previous articles on; focus group theory, and the preparation and conduct of focus group interviews. Despite the publications on conducting focus groups, little information exists regarding the analysis of data gathered in such groups in health services. The present paper focuses on the concepts and application of data analysis and the use of analysis frameworks. The article aims to assist researchers and provide practical steps for the analysis of focus-group data. Thus, the authors provide a framework for analysing focus group data through identifying data analysis techniques suited for the study of these data.

Patient Education and Counseling

Jozien Bensing

South East Asian Journal of Medical Education

Kalaiselvan Ganapathy

Oxfam Research Guidelines

Martin Walsh

Part of Oxfam’s Research Guidelines series, this guideline gives an overview of how to organize and conduct focus group discussions for qualitative research. Focus groups help to answer the ‘who’, ‘how’ and ‘why’ questions by allowing researchers to draw out respondents’ feelings, beliefs, attitudes, experiences and reactions in a way that is often not feasible using other methods. They are particularly useful for planning further data collection or to enrich and support existing data. Preparation, conduct, techniques, tips and reporting are all covered.

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

RELATED PAPERS

Journal of Health Research

CHOMCHUEN SOMPRASERT

International Journal of Language and Linguistics

Fatimah Almutrafi

[email protected] Taggart

Journal of Clinical …

Liz Halcomb

Public Health Nursing

Patricia Stevens

Elisa Waingort

Research in Nursing & Health

Australian and New …

Contemporary Nurse

Leonie Mosel Williams

Resky Maulidya

Nursing Practice Today

paymaneh shokrollahi

Journal of Family Planning and Reproductive Health Care

Emma Pitchforth

Journal of Marketing Research

David Stewart

Applied Nursing Research

Denise Cote-arsenault , Nancy Feinstein

Graduate Journal of Social Science

Using Focus Groups: Theory, Methodology, Practice

silvia cataldi

Marketing Management MBAIU_17

Quality & Quantity

ivana acocella

Qualitative health research

Jeffrey Botkin

Yahaya Umar

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

Search form

• Table of Contents
• Troubleshooting Guide
• A Model for Getting Started
• Justice Action Toolkit
• Best Change Processes
• Databases of Best Practices
• Online Courses
• Ask an Advisor
• Subscribe to eNewsletter
• Community Stories
• YouTube Channel
• About the Tool Box
• How to Use the Tool Box
• Privacy Statement
• Workstation/Check Box Sign-In
• Online Training Courses
• Capacity Building Training
• Training Curriculum - Order Now
• Community Check Box Evaluation System
• Build Your Toolbox
• Facilitation of Community Processes
• Community Health Assessment and Planning
• Section 4. Techniques for Leading Group Discussions

Chapter 16 Sections

• Section 1. Conducting Effective Meetings
• Section 2. Developing Facilitation Skills
• Section 3. Capturing What People Say: Tips for Recording a Meeting

• Main Section

A local coalition forms a task force to address the rising HIV rate among teens in the community.  A group of parents meets to wrestle with their feeling that their school district is shortchanging its students.  A college class in human services approaches the topic of dealing with reluctant participants.  Members of an environmental group attend a workshop on the effects of global warming.  A politician convenes a “town hall meeting” of constituents to brainstorm ideas for the economic development of the region.  A community health educator facilitates a smoking cessation support group.

All of these might be examples of group discussions, although they have different purposes, take place in different locations, and probably run in different ways.  Group discussions are common in a democratic society, and, as a community builder, it’s more than likely that you have been and will continue to be involved in many of them.  You also may be in a position to lead one, and that’s what this section is about.  In this last section of a chapter on group facilitation, we’ll examine what it takes to lead a discussion group well, and how you can go about doing it.

What is an effective group discussion?

The literal definition of a group discussion is obvious: a critical conversation about a particular topic, or perhaps a range of topics, conducted in a group of a size that allows participation by all members.  A group of two or three generally doesn’t need a leader to have a good discussion, but once the number reaches five or six, a leader or facilitator can often be helpful.  When the group numbers eight or more, a leader or facilitator, whether formal or informal, is almost always helpful in ensuring an effective discussion.

A group discussion is a type of meeting, but it differs from the formal meetings in a number of ways: It may not have a specific goal – many group discussions are just that: a group kicking around ideas on a particular topic.  That may lead to a goal ultimately...but it may not. It’s less formal, and may have no time constraints, or structured order, or agenda. Its leadership is usually less directive than that of a meeting. It emphasizes process (the consideration of ideas) over product (specific tasks to be accomplished within the confines of the meeting itself. Leading a discussion group is not the same as running a meeting.  It’s much closer to acting as a facilitator, but not exactly the same as that either.

An effective group discussion generally has a number of elements:

• All members of the group have a chance to speak, expressing their own ideas and feelings freely, and to pursue and finish out their thoughts
• All members of the group can hear others’ ideas and feelings stated openly
• Group members can safely test out ideas that are not yet fully formed
• Group members can receive and respond to respectful but honest and constructive feedback.  Feedback could be positive, negative, or merely clarifying or correcting factual questions or errors, but is in all cases delivered respectfully.
• A variety of points of view are put forward and discussed
• The discussion is not dominated by any one person
• Arguments, while they may be spirited, are based on the content of ideas and opinions, not on personalities
• Even in disagreement, there’s an understanding that the group is working together to resolve a dispute, solve a problem, create a plan, make a decision, find principles all can agree on, or come to a conclusion from which it can move on to further discussion

Many group discussions have no specific purpose except the exchange of ideas and opinions.  Ultimately, an effective group discussion is one in which many different ideas and viewpoints are heard and considered.  This allows the group to accomplish its purpose if it has one, or to establish a basis either for ongoing discussion or for further contact and collaboration among its members.

There are many possible purposes for a group discussion, such as:

• Create a new situation – form a coalition, start an initiative, etc.
• Explore cooperative or collaborative arrangements among groups or organizations
• Discuss and/or analyze an issue, with no specific goal in mind but understanding
• Create a strategic plan – for an initiative, an advocacy campaign, an intervention, etc.
• Discuss policy and policy change
• Air concerns and differences among individuals or groups
• Hold public hearings on proposed laws or regulations, development, etc.
• Decide on an action
• Provide mutual support
• Solve a problem
• Resolve a conflict
• Plan your work or an event

Possible leadership styles of a group discussion also vary.  A group leader or facilitator might be directive or non-directive; that is, she might try to control what goes on to a large extent; or she might assume that the group should be in control, and that her job is to facilitate the process.  In most group discussions, leaders who are relatively non-directive make for a more broad-ranging outlay of ideas, and a more satisfying experience for participants.

Directive leaders can be necessary in some situations. If a goal must be reached in a short time period, a directive leader might help to keep the group focused. If the situation is particularly difficult, a directive leader might be needed to keep control of the discussion and make

Why would you lead a group discussion?

There are two ways to look at this question: “What’s the point of group discussion?” and “Why would you, as opposed to someone else, lead a group discussion?”  Let’s examine both.

What’s the point of group discussion?

As explained in the opening paragraphs of this section, group discussions are common in a democratic society.  There are a number of reasons for this, some practical and some philosophical.

A group discussion:

• G ives everyone involved a voice .  Whether the discussion is meant to form a basis for action, or just to play with ideas, it gives all members of the group a chance to speak their opinions, to agree or disagree with others, and to have their thoughts heard.  In many community-building situations, the members of the group might be chosen specifically because they represent a cross-section of the community, or a diversity of points of view.
• Allows for a variety of ideas to be expressed and discussed .  A group is much more likely to come to a good conclusion if a mix of ideas is on the table, and if all members have the opportunity to think about and respond to them.
• Is generally a democratic, egalitarian process .  It reflects the ideals of most grassroots and community groups, and encourages a diversity of views.
• Leads to group ownership of whatever conclusions, plans, or action the group decides upon .  Because everyone has a chance to contribute to the discussion and to be heard, the final result feels like it was arrived at by and belongs to everyone.
• Encourages those who might normally be reluctant to speak their minds .  Often, quiet people have important things to contribute, but aren’t assertive enough to make themselves heard.  A good group discussion will bring them out and support them.
• Can often open communication channels among people who might not communicate in any other way .  People from very different backgrounds, from opposite ends of the political spectrum, from different cultures, who may, under most circumstances, either never make contact or never trust one another enough to try to communicate, might, in a group discussion, find more common ground than they expected.
• Is sometimes simply the obvious, or even the only, way to proceed.  Several of the examples given at the beginning of the section – the group of parents concerned about their school system, for instance, or the college class – fall into this category, as do public hearings and similar gatherings.

Why would you specifically lead a group discussion?

You might choose to lead a group discussion, or you might find yourself drafted for the task.  Some of the most common reasons that you might be in that situation:

• It’s part of your job .  As a mental health counselor, a youth worker, a coalition coordinator, a teacher, the president of a board of directors, etc. you might be expected to lead group discussions regularly.
• You’ve been asked to .  Because of your reputation for objectivity or integrity, because of your position in the community, or because of your skill at leading group discussions, you might be the obvious choice to lead a particular discussion.
• A discussion is necessary, and you’re the logical choice to lead it .  If you’re the chair of a task force to address substance use in the community, for instance, it’s likely that you’ll be expected to conduct that task force’s meetings, and to lead discussion of the issue.
• It was your idea in the first place .  The group discussion, or its purpose, was your idea, and the organization of the process falls to you.

You might find yourself in one of these situations if you fall into one of the categories of people who are often tapped to lead group discussions.  These categories include (but aren’t limited to):

• Directors of organizations
• Public officials
• Coalition coordinators
• Professionals with group-leading skills – counselors, social workers, therapists, etc.
• Health professionals and health educators
• Respected community members.  These folks may be respected for their leadership – president of the Rotary Club, spokesperson for an environmental movement – for their positions in the community – bank president, clergyman – or simply for their personal qualities – integrity, fairness, ability to communicate with all sectors of the community.
• Community activists.  This category could include anyone from “professional” community organizers to average citizens who care about an issue or have an idea they want to pursue.

When might you lead a group discussion?

The need or desire for a group discussion might of course arise anytime, but there are some times when it’s particularly necessary.

• At the start of something new . Whether you’re designing an intervention, starting an initiative, creating a new program, building a coalition, or embarking on an advocacy or other campaign, inclusive discussion is likely to be crucial in generating the best possible plan, and creating community support for and ownership of it.
• When an issue can no longer be ignored . When youth violence reaches a critical point, when the community’s drinking water is declared unsafe, when the HIV infection rate climbs – these are times when groups need to convene to discuss the issue and develop action plans to swing the pendulum in the other direction.
• When groups need to be brought together . One way to deal with racial or ethnic hostility, for instance, is to convene groups made up of representatives of all the factions involved.  The resulting discussions – and the opportunity for people from different backgrounds to make personal connections with one another – can go far to address everyone’s concerns, and to reduce tensions.
• When an existing group is considering its next step or seeking to address an issue of importance to it . The staff of a community service organization, for instance, may want to plan its work for the next few months, or to work out how to deal with people with particular quirks or problems.

How do you lead a group discussion?

In some cases, the opportunity to lead a group discussion can arise on the spur of the moment; in others, it’s a more formal arrangement, planned and expected.  In the latter case, you may have the chance to choose a space and otherwise structure the situation.  In less formal circumstances, you’ll have to make the best of existing conditions.

We’ll begin by looking at what you might consider if you have time to prepare.  Then we’ll examine what it takes to make an effective discussion leader or facilitator, regardless of external circumstances.

Set the stage

If you have time to prepare beforehand, there are a number of things you may be able to do to make the participants more comfortable, and thus to make discussion easier.

Choose the space

If you have the luxury of choosing your space, you might look for someplace that’s comfortable and informal.  Usually, that means comfortable furniture that can be moved around (so that, for instance, the group can form a circle, allowing everyone to see and hear everyone else easily).  It may also mean a space away from the ordinary.

One organization often held discussions on the terrace of an old mill that had been turned into a bookstore and café.  The sound of water from the mill stream rushing by put everyone at ease, and encouraged creative thought.

Provide food and drink

The ultimate comfort, and one that breaks down barriers among people, is that of eating and drinking.

Bring materials to help the discussion along

Most discussions are aided by the use of newsprint and markers to record ideas, for example.

Become familiar with the purpose and content of the discussion

If you have the opportunity, learn as much as possible about the topic under discussion.  This is not meant to make you the expert, but rather to allow you to ask good questions that will help the group generate ideas.

Make sure everyone gets any necessary information, readings, or other material beforehand

If participants are asked to read something, consider questions, complete a task, or otherwise prepare for the discussion, make sure that the assignment is attended to and used.  Don’t ask people to do something, and then ignore it.

Lead the discussion

Think about leadership style

The first thing you need to think about is leadership style, which we mentioned briefly earlier in the section.  Are you a directive or non-directive leader?  The chances are that, like most of us, you fall somewhere in between the extremes of the leader who sets the agenda and dominates the group completely, and the leader who essentially leads not at all. The point is made that many good group or meeting leaders are, in fact, facilitators, whose main concern is supporting and maintaining the process of the group’s work.  This is particularly true when it comes to group discussion, where the process is, in fact, the purpose of the group’s coming together.

A good facilitator helps the group set rules for itself, makes sure that everyone participates and that no one dominates, encourages the development and expression of all ideas, including “odd” ones, and safeguards an open process, where there are no foregone conclusions and everyone’s ideas are respected.  Facilitators are non-directive, and try to keep themselves out of the discussion, except to ask questions or make statements that advance it.  For most group discussions, the facilitator role is probably a good ideal to strive for.

It’s important to think about what you’re most comfortable with philosophically, and how that fits what you’re comfortable with personally.  If you’re committed to a non-directive style, but you tend to want to control everything in a situation, you may have to learn some new behaviors in order to act on your beliefs.

Put people at ease

Especially if most people in the group don’t know one another, it’s your job as leader to establish a comfortable atmosphere and set the tone for the discussion.

Help the group establish ground rules

The ground rules of a group discussion are the guidelines that help to keep the discussion on track, and prevent it from deteriorating into namecalling or simply argument.  Some you might suggest, if the group has trouble coming up with the first one or two:

• Everyone should treat everyone else with respect : no name-calling, no emotional outbursts, no accusations.
• No arguments directed at people – only at ideas and opinions .  Disagreement should be respectful – no ridicule.
• Don’t interrupt .  Listen to the whole of others’ thoughts – actually listen, rather than just running over your own response in your head.
• Respect the group’s time .  Try to keep your comments reasonably short and to the point, so that others have a chance to respond.
• Consider all comments seriously, and try to evaluate them fairly .  Others’ ideas and comments may change your mind, or vice versa: it’s important to be open to that.
• Don’t be defensive if someone disagrees with you .  Evaluate both positions, and only continue to argue for yours if you continue to believe it’s right.
• Everyone is responsible for following and upholding the ground rules .

Ground rules may also be a place to discuss recording the session.  Who will take notes, record important points, questions for further discussion, areas of agreement or disagreement?  If the recorder is a group member, the group and/or leader should come up with a strategy that allows her to participate fully in the discussion.

Generate an agenda or goals for the session

You might present an agenda for approval, and change it as the group requires, or you and the group can create one together.  There may actually be no need for one, in that the goal may simply be to discuss an issue or idea.  If that’s the case, it should be agreed upon at the outset.

How active you are might depend on your leadership style, but you definitely have some responsibilities here.  They include setting, or helping the group to set the discussion topic; fostering the open process; involving all participants; asking questions or offering ideas to advance the discussion; summarizing or clarifying important points, arguments, and ideas; and wrapping up the session.  Let’s look at these, as well as some do’s and don’t’s for discussion group leaders.

• Setting the topic . If the group is meeting to discuss a specific issue or to plan something, the discussion topic is already set.  If the topic is unclear, then someone needs to help the group define it.  The leader – through asking the right questions, defining the problem, and encouraging ideas from the group – can play that role.
• Fostering the open process . Nurturing the open process means paying attention to the process, content, and interpersonal dynamics of the discussion all at the same time – not a simple matter. As leader, your task is not to tell the group what to do, or to force particular conclusions, but rather to make sure that the group chooses an appropriate topic that meets its needs, that there are no “right” answers to start with (no foregone conclusions), that no one person or small group dominates the discussion, that everyone follows the ground rules, that discussion is civil and organized, and that all ideas are subjected to careful critical analysis.  You might comment on the process of the discussion or on interpersonal issues when it seems helpful (“We all seem to be picking on John here – what’s going on?”), or make reference to the open process itself (“We seem to be assuming that we’re supposed to believe X – is that true?”). Most of your actions as leader should be in the service of modeling or furthering the open process.

Part of your job here is to protect “minority rights,” i.e., unpopular or unusual ideas.  That doesn’t mean you have to agree with them, but that you have to make sure that they can be expressed, and that discussion of them is respectful, even in disagreement. (The exceptions are opinions or ideas that are discriminatory or downright false.)  Odd ideas often turn out to be correct, and shouldn’t be stifled.

• Involving all participants . This is part of fostering the open process, but is important enough to deserve its own mention. To involve those who are less assertive or shy, or who simply can’t speak up quickly enough, you might ask directly for their opinion, encourage them with body language (smile when they say anything, lean and look toward them often), and be aware of when they want to speak and can’t break in.  It’s important both for process and for the exchange of ideas that everyone have plenty of opportunity to communicate their thoughts.
• Asking questions or offering ideas to advance the discussion . The leader should be aware of the progress of the discussion, and should be able to ask questions or provide information or arguments that stimulate thinking or take the discussion to the next step when necessary. If participants are having trouble grappling with the topic, getting sidetracked by trivial issues, or simply running out of steam, it’s the leader’s job to carry the discussion forward.

This is especially true when the group is stuck, either because two opposing ideas or factions are at an impasse, or because no one is able or willing to say anything.  In these circumstances, the leader’s ability to identify points of agreement, or to ask the question that will get discussion moving again is crucial to the group’s effectiveness.

• Summarizing or clarifying important points, arguments, or ideas . This task entails making sure that everyone understands a point that was just made, or the two sides of an argument.  It can include restating a conclusion the group has reached, or clarifying a particular idea or point made by an individual (“What I think I heard you say was…”).  The point is to make sure that everyone understands what the individual or group actually meant.
• Wrapping up the session .  As the session ends, the leader should help the group review the discussion and make plans for next steps (more discussion sessions, action, involving other people or groups, etc.). He should also go over any assignments or tasks that were agreed to, make sure that every member knows what her responsibilities are, and review the deadlines for those responsibilities.  Other wrap-up steps include getting feedback on the session – including suggestions for making it better – pointing out the group’s accomplishments, and thanking it for its work.

Even after you’ve wrapped up the discussion, you’re not necessarily through. If you’ve been the recorder, you might want to put the notes from the session in order, type them up, and send them to participants. The notes might also include a summary of conclusions that were reached, as well as any assignments or follow-up activities that were agreed on.

If the session was one-time, or was the last of a series, your job may now be done. If it was the beginning, however, or part of an ongoing discussion, you may have a lot to do before the next session, including contacting people to make sure they’ve done what they promised, and preparing the newsprint notes to be posted at the next session so everyone can remember the discussion.

Leading an effective group discussion takes preparation (if you have the opportunity for it), an understanding of and commitment to an open process, and a willingness to let go of your ego and biases. If you can do these things, the chances are you can become a discussion leader that can help groups achieve the results they want.

Do’s and don’ts for discussion leaders

• Model the behavior and attitudes you want group members to employ . That includes respecting all group members equally; advancing the open process; demonstrating what it means to be a learner (admitting when you’re wrong, or don’t know a fact or an answer, and suggesting ways to find out); asking questions based on others’ statements; focusing on positions rather than on the speaker; listening carefully; restating others’ points; supporting your arguments with fact or logic; acceding when someone else has a good point; accepting criticism; thinking critically; giving up the floor when appropriate; being inclusive and culturally sensitive, etc.
• Use encouraging body language and tone of voice, as well as words .  Lean forward when people are talking, for example, keep your body position open and approachable, smile when appropriate, and attend carefully to everyone, not just to those who are most articulate.
• Give positive feedback for joining the discussion .  Smile, repeat group members’ points, and otherwise show that you value participation.
• Be aware of people’s reactions and feelings, and try to respond appropriately . If a group member is hurt by others’ comments, seems puzzled or confused, is becoming angry or defensive, it’s up to you as discussion leader to use the ground rules or your own sensitivity to deal with the situation. If someone’s hurt, for instance, it may be important to point that out and discuss how to make arguments without getting personal.  If group members are confused, revisiting the comments or points that caused the confusion, or restating them more clearly, may be helpful.  Being aware of the reactions of individuals and of the group as a whole can make it possible to expose and use conflict, or to head off unnecessary emotional situations and misunderstandings.
• Ask open-ended questions .  In advancing the discussion, use questions that can’t be answered with a simple yes or no.  Instead, questions should require some thought from group members, and should ask for answers that include reasons or analysis.  The difference between “Do you think the President’s decision was right?” and “Why do you think the President’s decision was or wasn’t right?” is huge.  Where the first question can be answered with a yes or no, the second requires an analysis supporting the speaker’s opinion, as well as discussion of the context and reasons for the decision.
• Control your own biases .  While you should point out factual errors or ideas that are inaccurate and disrespectful of others, an open process demands that you not impose your views on the group, and that you keep others from doing the same.  Group members should be asked to make rational decisions about the positions or views they want to agree with, and ultimately the ideas that the group agrees on should be those that make the most sense to them – whether they coincide with yours or not.  Pointing out bias – including your own – and discussing it helps both you and group members try to be objective.

A constant question that leaders – and members – of any group have is what to do about racist, sexist, or homophobic remarks, especially in a homogeneous group where most or all of the members except the leader may agree with them.  There is no clear-cut answer, although if they pass unchallenged, it may appear you condone the attitude expressed. How you challenge prejudice is the real question.  The ideal here is that other members of the group do the challenging, and it may be worth waiting long enough before you jump in to see if that’s going to happen.  If it doesn’t, you can essentially say, “That’s wrong, and I won’t allow that kind of talk here,” which may well put an end to the remarks, but isn’t likely to change anyone’s mind.  You can express your strong disagreement or discomfort with such remarks and leave it at that, or follow up with “Let’s talk about it after the group,” which could generate some real discussion about prejudice and stereotypes, and actually change some thinking over time. Your ground rules – the issue of respecting everyone – should address this issue, and it probably won’t come up…but there are no guarantees.  It won’t hurt to think beforehand about how you want to handle it.

• Encourage disagreement, and help the group use it creatively .  Disagreement is not to be smoothed over, but rather to be analyzed and used.  When there are conflicting opinions – especially when both can be backed up by reasonable arguments – the real discussion starts.  If everyone agrees on every point, there’s really no discussion at all.  Disagreement makes people think.  It may not be resolved in one session, or at all, but it’s the key to discussion that means something.

All too often, conflict – whether conflicting opinions, conflicting world views, or conflicting personalities – is so frightening to people that they do their best to ignore it or gloss it over.  That reaction not only leaves the conflict unresolved – and therefore growing, so that it will be much stronger when it surfaces later– but fails to examine the issues that it raises.  If those are brought out in the open and discussed reasonably, the two sides often find that they have as much agreement as disagreement, and can resolve their differences by putting their ideas together.  Even where that’s not the case, facing the conflict reasonably, and looking at the roots of the ideas on each side, can help to focus on the issue at hand and provide solutions far better than if one side or the other simply operated alone.

• Keep your mouth shut as much as possible .  By and large, discussion groups are for the group members.  You may be a member of the group and have been asked by the others to act as leader, in which case you certainly have a right to be part of the discussion (although not to dominate).  If you’re an outside facilitator, or leader by position, it’s best to confine your contributions to observations on process, statements of fact, questions to help propel the discussion, and clarification and summarization.  The simple fact that you’re identified as leader or facilitator gives your comments more force than those of other group members.  If you’re in a position of authority or seen as an expert, that force becomes even greater.  The more active you are in the discussion, the more the group will take your positions and ideas as “right,” and the less it will come to its own conclusions.
• Don’t let one or a small group of individuals dominate the discussion .  People who are particularly articulate or assertive, who have strong feelings that they urgently want to express, or who simply feel the need – and have the ability – to dominate can take up far more than their fair share of a discussion.  This often means that quieter people have little or no chance to speak, and that those who disagree with the dominant individual(s) are shouted down and cease trying to make points.  It’s up to the leader to cut off individuals who take far more than their share of time, or who try to limit discussion.  This can be done in a relatively non-threatening way (“This is an interesting point, and it’s certainly worth the time we’ve spent on it, but there are other points of view that need to be heard as well.  I think Alice has been waiting to speak…”), but it’s crucial to the open process and to the comfort and effectiveness of the group.
• Don’t let one point of view override others , unless it’s based on facts and logic, and is actually convincing group members to change their minds.  If a point of view dominates because of its merits, its appeal to participants’ intellectual and ethical sensibilities, that’s fine.  It’s in fact what you hope will happen in a good group discussion.  If a point of view dominates because of the aggressiveness of its supporters, or because it’s presented as something it’s wrong to oppose (“People who disagree with the President are unpatriotic and hate their country”), that’s intellectual bullying or blackmail, and is the opposite of an open discussion.  As leader, you should point it out when that’s happening, and make sure other points of view are aired and examined.

Sometimes individuals or factions that are trying to dominate can disrupt the process of the group. Both Sections 1 and 2 of this chapter contain some guidelines for dealing with this type of situation.

• Don’t assume that anyone holds particular opinions or positions because of his culture, background, race, personal style, etc .  People are individuals, and can’t be judged by their exteriors.  You can find out what someone thinks by asking, or by listening when he speaks.
• Don’t assume that someone from a particular culture, race, or background speaks for everyone else from that situation .  She may or may not represent the general opinion of people from situations similar to hers…or there may not be a general opinion among them.  In a group discussion, no one should be asked or assumed to represent anything more than herself.

The exception here is when someone has been chosen by her community or group to represent its point of view in a multi-sector discussion.  Even in that situation, the individual may find herself swayed by others’ arguments, or may have ideas of her own.  She may have agreed to sponsor particular ideas that are important to her group, but she may still have her own opinions as well, especially in other areas.

• Don’t be the font of all wisdom .  Even if you know more about the discussion topic than most others in the group (if you’re the teacher of a class, for instance), presenting yourself as the intellectual authority denies group members the chance to discuss the topic freely and without pressure.  Furthermore, some of them may have ideas you haven’t considered, or experiences that give them insights into the topic that you’re never likely to have.  Model learning behavior, not teaching behavior.

If you’re asked your opinion directly, you should answer honestly.  You have some choices about how you do that, however.  One is to state your opinion, but make very clear that it’s an opinion, not a fact, and that other people believe differently.  Another is to ask to hold your opinion until the end of the discussion, so as not to influence anyone’s thinking while it’s going on.  Yet another is to give your opinion after all other members of the group have stated theirs, and then discuss the similarities and differences among all the opinions and people’s reasons for holding them. If you’re asked a direct question, you might want to answer it if it’s a question of fact and you know the answer, and if it’s relevant to the discussion.  If the question is less clear-cut, you might want to throw it back to the group, and use it as a spur to discussion.

Group discussions are common in our society, and have a variety of purposes, from planning an intervention or initiative to mutual support to problem-solving to addressing an issue of local concern.  An effective discussion group depends on a leader or facilitator who can guide it through an open process – the group chooses what it’s discussing, if not already determined, discusses it with no expectation of particular conclusions, encourages civil disagreement and argument, and makes sure that every member is included and no one dominates.  It helps greatly if the leader comes to the task with a democratic or, especially, a collaborative style, and with an understanding of how a group functions.

A good group discussion leader has to pay attention to the process and content of the discussion as well as to the people who make up the group.  She has to prepare the space and the setting to the extent possible; help the group establish ground rules that will keep it moving civilly and comfortably; provide whatever materials are necessary; familiarize herself with the topic; and make sure that any pre-discussion readings or assignments get to participants in plenty of time.  Then she has to guide the discussion, being careful to promote an open process; involve everyone and let no one dominate; attend to the personal issues and needs of individual group members when they affect the group; summarize or clarify when appropriate; ask questions to keep the discussion moving, and put aside her own agenda, ego, and biases.

It’s not an easy task, but it can be extremely rewarding.  An effective group discussion can lay the groundwork for action and real community change.

Online resources

Everyday-Democracy . Study Circles Resource Center. Information and publications related to study circles, participatory discussion groups meant to address community issues.

Facilitating Political Discussions from the Institute for Democracy and Higher Education at Tufts University is designed to assist experienced facilitators in training others to facilitate politically charged conversations. The materials are broken down into "modules" and facilitation trainers can use some or all of them to suit their needs.

Project on Civic Reflection provides information about leading study circles on civic reflection.

“ Suggestions for Leading Small-Group Discussions ,” prepared by Lee Haugen, Center for Teaching Excellence, Iowa State University, 1998. Tips on university teaching, but much of the information is useful in other circumstances as well.

“ Tips for Leading Discussions ,” by Felisa Tibbits, Human Rights Education Associates.

Print resources

Forsyth, D . Group Dynamics . (2006). (4th edition).  Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth. 

Johnson, D., & Frank P. (2002). Joining Together: Group theory and group skills . (8th edition).  Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

What is Group Discussion? (GD), Objectives, Types, Prerequisites, Steps

• Post last modified: 4 June 2023
• Reading time: 24 mins read
• Post category: Business Communication

• What is Group Discussion?

Group Discussion (GD) is a technique where the group of participants share their views and opinions on a topic for a specific duration. Companies conduct this evaluation process because business management is essentially a team activity and working with groups is an essential parameter in organisations.

Table of Content

• 1 What is Group Discussion?
• 2 Group Discussion (GD) Definition
• 3 Objectives of Group Discussion (GD)
• 4.1 Topic-based GDs
• 4.2 Case-based GDs
• 4.3 Article-based GDs
• 5.1 Prior knowledge
• 5.2 Active listening
• 5.3 Effective communication
• 5.4 Appropriate body language
• 6.1 Initiate
• 6.3 Summarise
• 7 Do’s and Don’ts of Group Discussion
• 8.1 Communication skills
• 8.2 Analytical and interpretative skills
• 8.3 Interpersonal skills
• 8.4 Persuasive skills
• 9.1 Objective of conducting a GD
• 9.2 Venue setup
• 9.4 Pre-instructions for participants
• 9.5 Defined parameters for selection
• 9.6 Role of assessor/evaluator
• 9.7 Clear communication of results post GD

GD is an opportunity for an organisation to evaluate a candidate’s communication skills, knowledge, leadership skills, listening skills, social skills, ability to think on the spot and improvise. A typical GD has about 8-12 participants and 2 or more assessors. The assessors sit where they can clearly see and hear all the candidates.

They record the behaviour of participants during the group discussion. Then, they evaluate the recorded observations against the desired traits and finalise a few candidates from the group.

Group Discussion (GD) Definition

Group discussion is a communication process that involves the exchange of ideas, information, and opinions among a group of people. It is a powerful tool for problem-solving, decision-making, and generating new ideas. – Stephen P. Robbins, author of “Organizational Behavior”

A group discussion is an interactive process where a group of individuals come together to exchange ideas, opinions, and information on a specific topic. The goal of a group discussion is to arrive at a collective decision or solution that is acceptable to all members of the group.” – The Indian Institute of Technology (IIT)

Group discussion is a method of communication in which a small group of people come together to discuss a topic or problem. The group members share their ideas and perspectives with one another in order to arrive at a solution or decision that benefits the group as a whole.” – The American Psychological Association (APA)

Group discussion is an effective means of exploring and analyzing complex issues, generating creative ideas, and arriving at consensus among participants. It provides a platform for individuals to express their views, clarify their understanding, and learn from the perspectives of others.” – The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)

Objectives of Group Discussion (GD)

Group discussions are conducted to serve various purposes. It is a two-way communication process through which recruiters get to assess the soft skills of candidates, while the candidates can gain clarity about their own thoughts, opinions and views.

The following are some of the objectives of a group discussion activity:

• To collect data
• To breed fresh ideas and take inputs from a particular group
• To perceive the common ideas of people on a particular topic
• To identify the solution of a specific problem or issue
• To select a candidate for hiring in a company
• To select candidate for admission in an educational institute
• To arrive at a consensus regarding a common concern

Types of Group Discussion (GDs)

A group discussion delineates how a candidate participates, behaves and contributes in a group. There are three main types of GDs :

Topic-based GDs

Case-based gds, article-based gds.

These are based on certain practical topics, such as the harmful effects of plastics on the environment or the need of college degree for entrepreneurship. These GDs can be further classified into:

• Factual GDs : These are informative GDs that require comprehensive knowledge about a subject. For example, the economic growth of India since independence.
• Controversial GDs : These GDs are based on controversial topics, which test the ability of a candidate to handle a situation, control anger, display patience and think critically. For example, arranged marriage vs. love marriage.
• Abstract GDs : These GDs are based on certain conceptual topics that are used to evaluate a candidate’s creative thinking and analytical ability. For example, challenges before humanity.

In these GDs, a case study is presented to group members to read and analyse in a given period. Candidates need to discuss the case study among themselves and reach on a com- mon consensus to solve the given situation. This helps to evaluate their problem solving, analytical ability, critical thinking and creative thinking skills.

Candidates are presented with an article on any field, such as politics, sports, or technology, and asked to discuss the given situation.

Prerequisites of Group Discussion (GD)

There are some essential requirements for gaining success in a group discussion. The following are some important requirements to be fulfilled by a candidate in order to ensure a successful GD:

Prior knowledge

Active listening, effective communication, appropriate body language.

A candidate with in-depth knowledge and command over the topic initiates the discussion. He/she gets noticed and usually selected in a group discussion. However, starting the discussion does not guarantee the selection and also it does not show the leadership qualities.

Therefore, one should start a discussion only when he/she is well acquainted with the topic. In case, one is not well acquainted with the topic, he/she should first listen to others and then speak.

Only good listeners can be active participators in a discussion. Such persons listen to others and remain attentive and active throughout the discussion. Therefore, a listener is more likely to imbibe knowledge than a speaker. By listening carefully, a candidate can contribute by formulating his/her own thoughts that can be verbally delivered.

Candidates should have good communication skills and they should take care of the overtones. One should be able to understand other participants’ perception and thoughts. Then, accordingly, Agree to or refute the ideas or viewpoints presented by other candidates.

Therefore, healthy and clear thoughts should be exchanged while pursuing a group discussion to gain attention of the assessors.

Gestures, facial expressions, eye contact and tone of voice show the amount of interest a candidate has in a group discussion. It is important to maintain eye contact with the evaluator(s) when starting a discussion. The coordinator notices the body language of the candidates to assess their confidence level.

Steps of Effective Group Discussion

A GD is a method used by organisations to analyse the skills of candidates and decide whether their personality traits are desirable for the job or not.

While facing a GD, the following steps should be performed:

If you want to quickly grab the attention of assessors, then start the GD. However, you must have good knowledge or understanding of the subject being discussed. To make your speech more interesting, you can start with a relevant quote or a short/interesting story; but keep track of time.

There might be a situation when you do not have enough knowledge to start a discussion. In that case, wait, watch and listen to others. As soon as you get an opening, jump in and take charge. Move the conversation forward to make it impactful. However, remember not to over-drag the topic. Sometimes, less is more.

Closing a GD is another opportunity to get the attention of the evaluators. Recap the discussion, connect the dots, highlight the key points and summarise them. Make sure that the summary includes both the positive and negative viewpoints on the topic presented by the candidates.

Do’s and Don’ts of Group Discussion

In this section, we will discuss some Do’s and Don’ts to be taken care of by all the candidates who wish to perform well in a GD.

Some Do’s to be kept in mind during a GD are:

• Be a good listener by being patient.
• Acknowledge everyone else and what they say.
• Articulate views in a way that is comprehensible to others.
• Structure your thoughts and present them logically.
• Read newspapers, current affairs, essays and articles to develop thought structuring.
• Respect others for what they are.
• Be open-minded and acknowledge the fact that people think differently about issues.
• Train your mind for analytical thinking by taking all aspects into consideration.

It is also important to avoid doing certain things while participating in a GD. Some Don’ts to be aware of while pursuing a GD are:

• Avoid irrelevant talk.
• Avoid interrupting others while they are talking. If you need to cut short a speaker, then do so politely and with due apology.
• Avoid dominating the conversation. Ask others to contribute. Acknowledge their viewpoints.
• Avoid getting into an argument. Try to express clearly in a healthy manner.
• Do not show lack of interest and negative attitude.
• Avoid stating only your viewpoint.
• Avoid dwelling only on one aspect of the GD.

Group Discussion Evaluation Criteria

Each group discussion exercise is assessed by one or more individuals who are trained to observe and assess behavioural traits relevant for a specific job. The four main behavioural traits assessed through a group discussion are shown in Figure

Let us discuss these behavioural traits in detail.

Communication skills

Analytical and interpretative skills, interpersonal skills, persuasive skills.

These skills are judged on the basis of how a participant is getting his/her message across, how he/she is using his/her body language and also listening skills.

Assessors draw conclusions about a participant’s interpreting and analysing skills by observing how he/she uses facts and data, considers complex problems and issues, suggests solutions, etc.

Assessors observe the participants’ interactions with one another, how they allow one another to express themselves, etc.

The influencing skills of participants are as- sessed based on how well they are able to persuade one another, convince others about a viewpoint or impact others’ behaviour.

Organising a Group Discussion

A Group Discussion generally involves a group of 8-10 participants who are evaluated by a selection panel. GDs are used to evaluate whether a candidate is a perfect fit for an organisation or not. Be it college placements, MBA courses, job interviews or general researches, GDs are conducted almost in every field to gauge whether the candidate possesses the required skills and personality traits to be a part of the concerned institution. A facilitator has to take care of all the nitty-gritties of organising a GD.

In order to conduct a successful GD, the following aspects need to be taken into consideration:

Objective of conducting a GD

Venue setup, pre-instructions for participants, defined parameters for selection, role of assessor/evaluator, clear communication of results post gd.

Every GD has a specific purpose such as selecting deserving candidates for admission in professional course or gaining new talented employees in an organisation. Therefore, the objective of a GD should be clear to all the members of the selection panel in order to select the most deserving candidate.

An appropriate venue should be set up to conduct a GD. The venue should not be overcrowded, which may make the participants feel uncomfortable. The space selected for conducting the GD should be well-ventilated, equipped with proper lighting and should have a proper seating arrangement.

A stipulated time limit should be set for each participant to present his/her views. Firstly, participants are given a topic and some time to understand the topic and organise their thoughts. Thereafter they start presenting their views and opinions over the given topic. The time provided to the participants should be logical and it should start at that time only with no delay and waiting.

Prior communication with the participants should be properly conducted along with mentioning the time allotted to one participant to speak. The topic of discussion should be specified clearly along with the instructions and timings of when to start and stop. Big MNCs have their well-panned GD guide that provides instructions to the participants.

There are various parameters based on which a candidate is evaluated. Some of these parameters are listening power, level of confidence, decision-making ability, analytical skills, leadership skills, etc.

Candidates can speak whatever they like on the subject under discussion. The assessors note down their observations for each candidate. Once the discussion is over, the assessors review the information recorded against the desired behaviour. Therefore, a proper evaluation sheet should be maintained for writing down observations so that no errors occur while the selection of candidates.

The results should be announced clearly post the GD. The facilitator should ensure that the participants should not be made to wait for too long for the results.

The following are some points that you should take care of while preparing for a group discussion:

• Ensure your contribution to the group : Candidates need to make sure that they contribute to the conversation. Candidates having avoiding behaviours or actions do not contribute to the discussion’s outcome. Such behaviours need to be avoided and involvement in the GD is necessary to make a mark.
• Manage conflicts effectively : In case of any disagreement with members of the group, ensure that you persuade them without getting rude and aggressive. Assessors will pick such arrogant behaviour and highlight it as your negative aspect.
• Manage your time : Candidates need to stick to the timeline al- lotted for the discussion as the same would suggest that they are punctual and follow the timeline persistently.
• Include others : Encourage those who do not speak up during the discussion and urge them to give their opinions. This will gain assessors’ praise and group members appreciation.
• Be a team player : Generally, group discussion exercises require that the members come to an agreement on the topic being discussed. However, ensure that you do not impose your ideas on others. A better way is to include everyone’s ideas and centre it around the organisation rather than express something that might only benefit one member.

Business Communication Notes

( Click on Topic to Read )

• What is Business Communication?
• What is Communication?
• Types of Communication
• 7 C of Communication
• Barriers To Business Communication
• Oral Communication
• Types Of Non Verbal Communication
• What is Written Communication?
• What are Soft Skills?
• Interpersonal vs Intrapersonal communication
• Barriers to Communication
• Importance of Communication Skills

Listening in Communication

Causes of miscommunication.

• What is Johari Window?
• What is Presentation?
• Communication Styles

Channels of Communication

Hofstede’s dimensions of cultural differences and benett’s stages of intercultural sensitivity.

• Organisational Communication
• Horizontal C ommunication
• Grapevine Communication
• Downward Communication
• Verbal Communication Skills
• Upward Communication
• Flow of Communication
• What is Emotional Intelligence?
• What is Public Speaking?
• Upward vs Downward Communication
• Internal vs External Communication
• What is Interview?
• What is Negotiation?
• What is Digital Communication?
• What is Letter Writing?

Resume and Covering Letter

• What is Report Writing?
• What is Business Meeting?
• What is Public Relations?
• What Is Market Segmentation?
• What Is Marketing Mix?
• Marketing Concept
• Marketing Management Process
• What Is Marketing Environment?
• What Is Consumer Behaviour?
• Business Buyer Behaviour
• Demand Forecasting
• 7 Stages Of New Product Development
• Methods Of Pricing
• What Is Public Relations?
• What Is Marketing Management?
• What Is Sales Promotion?
• Types Of Sales Promotion
• Techniques Of Sales Promotion
• What Is Personal Selling?
• What Is Advertising?
• Market Entry Strategy
• What Is Marketing Planning?
• Segmentation Targeting And Positioning
• Brand Building Process
• Kotler Five Product Level Model
• Classification Of Products
• Types Of Logistics
• What Is Consumer Research?
• What Is DAGMAR?
• Consumer Behaviour Models
• What Is Green Marketing?
• What Is Electronic Commerce?
• Agricultural Cooperative Marketing
• What Is Marketing Control?
• What Is Marketing Communication?
• What Is Pricing?
• Models Of Communication
• What is Sales Management?
• Objectives of Sales Management
• Responsibilities and Skills of Sales Manager
• Theories of Personal Selling
• What is Sales Forecasting?
• Methods of Sales Forecasting
• Purpose of Sales Budgeting
• Methods of Sales Budgeting
• Types of Sales Budgeting
• Sales Budgeting Process
• What is Sales Quotas?
• What is Selling by Objectives (SBO) ?
• What is Sales Organisation?
• Types of Sales Force Structure
• Recruiting and Selecting Sales Personnel
• Training and Development of Salesforce
• Compensating the Sales Force
• Time and Territory Management
• What Is Logistics?
• What Is Logistics System?
• Technologies in Logistics
• What Is Distribution Management?
• What Is Marketing Intermediaries?
• Conventional Distribution System
• Functions of Distribution Channels
• What is Channel Design?
• Types of Wholesalers and Retailers
• What is Vertical Marketing Systems?
• What i s Marketing?
• What i s A BCG Matrix?
• 5 M’S Of Advertising
• What i s Direct Marketing?
• Marketing Mix For Services
• What Market Intelligence System?
• What i s Trade Union?
• What Is International Marketing?
• World Trade Organization (WTO)
• What i s International Marketing Research?
• What is Exporting?
• What is Licensing?
• What is Franchising?
• What is Joint Venture?
• What is Turnkey Projects?
• What is Management Contracts?
• What is Foreign Direct Investment?
• Factors That Influence Entry Mode Choice In Foreign Markets
• What is Price Escalations?
• What is Transfer Pricing?
• Integrated Marketing Communication (IMC)
• What is Promotion Mix?
• Factors Affecting Promotion Mix
• Functions & Role Of Advertising
• What is Database Marketing?
• What is Advertising Budget?
• What is Advertising Agency?
• What is Market Intelligence?
• What is Industrial Marketing?
• What is Customer Value
• What is Consumer Behaviour?
• What Is Personality?
• What Is Perception?
• What Is Learning?
• What Is Attitude?
• What Is Motivation?
• Consumer Imagery
• Consumer Attitude Formation
• What Is Culture?
• Consumer Decision Making Process
• Applications of Consumer Behaviour in Marketing
• Motivational Research
• Theoretical Approaches to Study of Consumer Behaviour
• Consumer Involvement
• Consumer Lifestyle
• Theories of Personality
• Outlet Selection
• Organizational Buying Behaviour
• Reference Groups
• Consumer Protection Act, 1986
• Diffusion of Innovation
• Opinion Leaders
• What is Business Law?
• Indian Contract Act 1872
• Essential Elements of a Valid Contract
• Types of Contract
• What is Discharge of Contract?
• Performance of Contract
• Sales of Goods Act 1930
• Goods & Price: Contract of Sale
• Conditions and Warranties
• Doctrine of Caveat Emptor
• Transfer of Property
• Rights of Unpaid Seller
• Negotiable Instruments Act 1881
• Types of Negotiable Instruments
• Types of Endorsement
• What is Promissory Note?
• What is Cheque?
• What is Crossing of Cheque?
• What is Bill of Exchange?
• What is Offer?
• Limited Liability Partnership Act 2008
• Memorandum of Association
• Articles of Association
• What is Director?
• Trade Unions Act, 1926
• Industrial Disputes Act 1947
• Employee State Insurance Act 1948
• Payment of Wages Act 1936
• Payment of Bonus Act 1965
• Labour Law in India
• What is Brand Management?
• 4 Steps of Strategic Brand Management Process
• Customer Based Brand Equity
• What is Brand Equity?

You Might Also Like

What is Communication? Importance, Forms, Nature

Barriers to Communication: Types, How to Overcome

What is Written Communication? Advantages, Disadvantages

What is letter writing layouts, types.

What is Downward Communication? Advantages, Disadvantages

What is Grapevine Communication? Types, Advantages

What is Public Relations? Definition, Tools, Function, Advantages, Process

Leave a reply cancel reply.

You must be logged in to post a comment.

World's Best Online Courses at One Place

We’ve spent the time in finding, so you can spend your time in learning

Digital Marketing

Personal Growth

Development

TNPSC Group 2 Question Paper, Download All Sets Paper PDF

Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission conducted the TNPSC Group 2 Exam on 14 September 2024 in various centres of the state. Candidate downloads the TNPSC Group 2 Question Paper 2024 PDF for all sets from this article

Table of Contents

Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission conducted the TNPSC Group 2 Exam on 14th September 2024 in two shifts. In this article, we have provided the direct link to download the Group 2 Paper for all sets and a brief analysis to help aspirants prepare effectively for future exams.

TNPSC Group 2 Question Paper 2024

The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (TNPSC) Group 2 Exam is a prestigious examination for recruiting candidates into various government roles across Tamil Nadu. The exam is conducted in multiple stages, and the September 14, 2024, paper was crucial for many aspiring civil servants. The question paper covered a range of subjects including General Studies, Aptitude, and General Tamil/General English.

TNPSC Group 2 Question Paper 2024 PDF

Candidate can download the TNPSC Group 2 Question Paper 2024 from the direct link provided below. This PDF will allow you to review the questions, understand the pattern, and assess your performance.

Download TNPSC Group 2 Question Paper PDF

Steps to Download TNPSC Group 2 Question Paper PDF?

To download the TNPSC Group 2 Question Paper PDF for the exam conducted on September 14, 2024, follow these steps:

• Visit the Official TNPSC Website: Go to the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (TNPSC) official website. The URL is usually www.tnpsc.gov.in.
• Navigate to the ‘Examinations’ Section: Look for the ‘Examinations’ or ‘Exams’ tab on the homepage. This section contains links to various exam-related updates and documents.
• Find the ‘Question Papers’ Link: Under the ‘Examinations’ tab, locate the ‘Question Papers’ link. This may also be listed under ‘Latest Notifications’ or ‘Downloads’.
• Select the TNPSC Group 2 Exam: Find the link for the TNPSC Group 2 exam. Ensure you select the exam conducted on September 14, 2024.
• Download the PDF: Click on the link for the TNPSC Group 2 Question Paper. The PDF file should automatically start downloading, or you may be redirected to a new page where you can click on a download button.
• Save and Review: Once downloaded, open the PDF file on your device. Save it to your preferred location for easy access. Review the questions to aid in your exam preparation.

Difficulty Level of Group 2 Question Paper

1. General Studies: The General Studies section featured questions on current affairs, history, geography, and politics. Candidates found the questions to be a mix of straightforward and analytical, reflecting recent developments in national and international affairs.

2. Aptitude: The Aptitude section tested mathematical and logical reasoning skills. Questions ranged from basic arithmetic to complex problem-solving, challenging candidates to apply their knowledge effectively.

3. General Tamil/General English: The language section included questions on grammar, vocabulary, and comprehension. Candidates were required to demonstrate a strong command of the language, with questions designed to test both understanding and application.

Sharing is caring!

Greetings! I'm Piyush, a content writer at StudyIQ. I specialize in creating enlightening content focused on UPSC and State PSC exams. Let's embark on a journey of discovery, where we unravel the intricacies of these exams and transform aspirations into triumphant achievements together!

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Trending Event

• UPSC Mains Admit Card 2024
• SSC CGL Exam Analysis 2024 : 13 Sept
• SSC CGL Exam Analysis 2024 : 12 Sept
• SSC CGL Exam Analysis 2024 : 11 Sept
• SSC CGL Exam Analysis 2024 : 10 Sept
• SSC CGL Exam Analysis 2024 : 9 Sept
• SSC GD 2025 Apply Online
• TNPSC Group 2 Hall Ticket 2024
• TNPSC Group 2 Result 2024

Recent Posts

UPSC Exam 2024

• UPSC Online Coaching
• UPSC Syllabus 2024
• UPSC Prelims Syllabus 2024
• UPSC Mains Syllabus 2024
• UPSC Exam Pattern 2024
• UPSC Age Limit 2024
• UPSC Calendar 2025
• UPSC Syllabus in Hindi
• UPSC Full Form
• UPPSC Exam 2024
• UPPSC Calendar
• UPPSC Syllabus 2024
• UPPSC Exam Pattern 2024
• UPPSC Application Form 2024
• UPPSC Eligibility Criteria 2024
• UPPSC Admit card 2024
• UPPSC Salary And Posts
• UPPSC Cut Off
• UPPSC Previous Year Paper

BPSC Exam 2024

• BPSC 70th Notification
• BPSC 69th Exam Analysis
• BPSC Admit Card
• BPSC Syllabus
• BPSC Exam Pattern
• BPSC Cut Off
• BPSC Question Papers

SSC CGL 2024

• SSC CGL Exam 2024
• SSC CGL Syllabus 2024
• SSC CGL Cut off
• SSC CGL Apply Online
• SSC CGL Salary
• SSC CGL Previous Year Question Paper
• SSC CGL Admit Card 2024
• SSC MTS 2024
• SSC MTS Apply Online 2024
• SSC MTS Syllabus 2024
• SSC MTS Salary 2024
• SSC MTS Eligibility Criteria 2024
• SSC MTS Previous Year Paper

SSC Stenographer 2024

• SSC Stenographer Notification 2024
• SSC Stenographer Apply Online 2024
• SSC Stenographer Syllabus 2024
• SSC Stenographer Salary 2024
• SSC Stenographer Eligibility Criteria 2024

SSC GD Constable 2025

• SSC GD Salary 2025
• SSC GD Constable Syllabus 2025
• SSC GD Eligibility Criteria 2025

IMPORTANT EXAMS

• Terms & Conditions
• Return & Refund Policy
• Privacy Policy

• Open access
• Published: 14 September 2024

Mapping the extent of the literature and psychometric properties for the Physical Activity Scale for the Elderly (PASE) in community-dwelling older adults: a scoping review

• Cassandra D’Amore 1   na1 ,
• Lexie Lajambe 1   na1 ,
• Noah Bush 1 ,
• Sydney Hiltz 1 ,
• Justin Laforest 1 ,
• Isabella Viel 1 ,
• Qiukui Hao 1 &
• Marla Beauchamp 1  

BMC Geriatrics volume  24 , Article number:  761 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

Metrics details

Identifying valid and accessible tools for monitoring and improving physical activity levels is essential for promoting functional ability and healthy aging. The Physical Activity Scale for the Elderly (PASE) is a commonly used and recommended self-report measure of physical activity in older adults. The objective of this scoping review was to map the nature and extent to which the PASE has been used in the literature on community-dwelling older adults, including the evidence for its psychometric properties.

Seven electronic databases (MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), AMED (Ovid), Emcare (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCO), Ageline (EBSCO)) were searched from inception to January 25, 2023. Studies were included if physical activity was part of the aim(s) and measured using the PASE, participants had a mean age of 60 years or older and lived in the community, and papers were peer-reviewed journal articles published in English. Pairs of independent reviewers screened abstracts, full-texts, and extracted data. Where possible, weighted mean PASE scores were calculated for different subgroups based on age, sex, and clinical population.

From 4,124 studies screened, 232 articles from 35 countries met the inclusion criteria. Most studies were cross-sectional (60.78%), completed in high-income countries (86.4%) and in North America (49.57%). A variety of clinical conditions were included ( n  = 21), with the most common populations being osteoarthritis ( n  = 13), Parkinson’s disease ( n  = 11), and cognitive impairment ( n  = 7). Psychometric properties of ten versions of the PASE were found. All versions demonstrated acceptable test-retest reliability. Evidence for construct validity showed moderate correlations with self-reported physical activity, fair to moderate with accelerometry derived activity and fair relationships with physical function and self-reported health. Pooled means were reported in graphs and forest plots for males, females, age groups, and several clinical populations.

The PASE was widely used in a variety of clinical populations and geographical locations. The PASE has been culturally adapted to several populations and evaluated for its reliability and convergent validity; however, further research is required to examine responsiveness and predictive validity. Researchers can use the weighted mean PASE scores presented in this study to help interpret PASE scores in similar populations.

OSF registration

osf.io/7bvhx

Peer Review reports

A pressing issue in the current healthcare system is the growing burden of chronic disease and multimorbidity associated with the world’s aging population [ 1 , 2 ]. There is an increasing number of older adults who require home care or housing options to support additional needs, including retirement homes, assisted living, or long-term care facilities [ 1 ]. Maintaining functional ability in later adulthood is a key public health priority and the promotion of physical activity (PA) is a central strategy for healthy aging initiatives [ 3 ]. Regular participation in PA has been shown to improve physical function, reduce impairments, promote independent living, and improve quality of life in older adults [ 4 ]. Physical activity can assist in maintaining cardiovascular, metabolic, and cognitive function; all of which reduce the risk of multimorbidity [ 5 , 6 , 7 ].

The World Health Organization (WHO) defines PA as “any bodily movement produced by skeletal muscles that requires energy expenditure” [ 8 ]. A growing body of evidence has demonstrated the importance of overall activity levels, including lighter intensity activities [ 9 ]. In addition to recommendations for moderate to vigorous activities, PA guidelines encourage changes in time allocation from sitting activities to light intensity activities, including standing [ 8 , 10 ]. Given the inclinations for lighter intensity activities in older ages (e.g., walking, gardening), clinicians and researchers must have tools to accurately assess and monitor the full spectrum of physical activities in this population.

Direct measures of PA (e.g., pedometers, accelerometers, and the gold standard of the doubly labelled water method) [ 11 ] can capture the full spectrum of activities. However, these measures can be more expensive, rely on equipment availability, and place a greater burden on participants [ 5 ]. Alternatively, self-report measures can be a low-cost, feasible tool for assessing and monitoring activity levels [ 12 ]. While not all questionnaires capture the same breadth of activities, the Physical Activity Scale for the Elderly (PASE) has been recommended for use in older adults for its inclusion of lighter intensity activities [ 5 ]. The PASE was designed to consider a greater number of activity domains more representative of the typical activities undertaken by older adults (e.g., gardening and household tasks) [ 13 ]. The questionnaire was developed for older adults (≥ 65), takes approximately 10 min to complete (10 questions), and asks participants to recall their activity over the last 7-days [ 13 , 14 ]. Activity types include sitting, walking, sport/recreation, exercise, occupational, and household [ 13 ]. A total score for PA can be calculated using these answers and the predetermined weights associated with each activity [ 13 ]. The PASE has been described as a suitable PA outcome measure for older adults who have multiple chronic conditions and is a recommended for measuring total PA in older adults based on evidence for its reliability and validity compared to other questionnaires [ 12 ].

To date, there has not been a comprehensive review of the populations and settings in which the PASE has been used. Rather, the literature on the PASE has focused on comparing the psychometric properties of multiple self-report measures of PA for specific populations. For example, Sattler et al. (2020) explored PA measures in healthy older adults and Garnett et al. (2019) in community-dwelling older adults with multiple chronic conditions. As part of their syntheses of all self-report PA measures both included a summary on the PASE, of ten and seven studies respectively [ 5 , 12 ]. As both these reviews recommend the use of the PASE, a more thorough exploration of the PASE with broader criteria is warranted. Further, the extent of the literature on its psychometric properties has not been thoroughly investigated. Therefore, the purpose of this scoping review was to map the nature and extent of the literature on the PASE in older populations (mean age 60) and to consolidate knowledge about the characteristics of studies using the PASE as an outcome measure, including available data on its psychometric properties. Our research questions were as follows:

To what extent has the PASE been used in older populations (e.g., number of studies, PASE administration, outcome operationalization from the PASE)?

What are the characteristics of studies that have used the PASE as an outcome measure (e.g., locations, sample characteristics, study designs)?

What is the nature and extent of the literature on the psychometric properties of the PASE in older populations (e.g., reliability, validity, cultural translation)?

The JBI guidelines for scoping reviews were followed in addition to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines (checklist available in Additional file 1 Table A1) [ 15 , 16 ]. This review protocol was registered with Open Science Framework ( https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/7BVHX ).

Search strategy

A broad search strategy was created with the assistance of a research librarian at the Health Sciences Library at McMaster University using the following key terms: “Physical Activity Scale for the Elderly”, “PASE”, “physical activity profile”, and “older”. Unique search strategies were developed for the following electronic databases: MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED; Ovid), Emcare (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCO), Ageline (EBSCO). Databases were searched from inception to January 25 th , 2023. Backward citation searching was performed in Web of Science (Clarivate) for the original PASE article by Washburn and colleagues [ 13 ]. The complete search strategy for all databases is available in Additional file 1 Table A2. Reference lists of relevant systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and scoping reviews were screened and hand searched for additional articles.

Inclusion/exclusion criteria

To be included in this review studies must have populations consisting of older adults with a mean age greater than or equal to 60 years in line with the United Nations definition of older adults [ 17 ]. No restrictions were placed on sex, race or cultural background.

The overarching concept for this scoping review was the PASE; this included the original version and translated versions. Therefore, to be included studies must have incorporated PA in their aims and present results from the administration of the PASE. This criterion was further refined to specify that PASE must be included as a primary or secondary outcome (i.e., not just a covariate). The outcomes of interest to this review were the characteristics of the studies (e.g., cross-sectional vs prospective) and populations the PASE was used in (e.g., country, clinical populations, sex), mean total scores of the PASE, how the PASE was used (e.g., to look at relationships with PA, to determine intervention efficacy), as well as psychometric properties that have been evaluated.

Studies from any geographic location were included. After initial full-text screening the inclusion criteria was further refined to improve heterogeneity of included studies and ensure feasibility of the project due to the large number of results. The setting was restricted to designated community-dwelling populations which reflects the original context the PASE was designed in [ 13 ].

Studies were excluded if they were not written in English or if they were conference abstracts, presentations, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, scoping reviews, evidence maps, rapid reviews, literature reviews, narrative reviews, or critical reviews. Reviews were flagged and screened for additional citations.

Study selection

Results from the comprehensive literature search were organized in Endnote 20 (Clarivate, Philadelphia, USA) and uploaded to Covidence systematic review software (Veritas Health Innovation, Melbourne, Australia) for screening. Duplicated studies were removed using both programs prior to screening and any remaining were removed by hand. Prior to each phase of screening the reviewer team conducted pilot screening to improve agreement. For title and abstracts screening and full-text eligibility two independent reviewers (NB, LL, JL, IV, SH, and CD) confirmed the predetermined eligibility criteria. Due to the volume of full-text screening authors were not contacted for further details; where information for a given eligibility criteria was not reported or unclear the paper was excluded. Any disagreements during the abstract or the full-text review process were resolved by either consensus or arbitration by a third reviewer when necessary.

Data extraction and analysis

Data was extracted from the studies verbatim by two or more independent reviewers (NB, LL, JL, IV, SH, and CD). Modifications to the initial data extraction table made during the piloting process included the removal of details not necessary in a scoping review (e.g., funding sources, conflicts of interest) and the aims of this study (e.g., setting, recruitment methods). Additionally, separate columns were added to distinguish values calculated or extrapolated by reviewers versus authors (e.g., mean PASE scores, income classification). The following descriptive data was extracted: study details (geographical location, outcome measures, study design), population description (number of participants, mean age, sex, clinical population), PASE version and administration method, how the PASE was reported (e.g., mean vs categorical, subcategories vs full questionnaire), and psychometric properties reported.

Data was summarized in a descriptive manner through counts and percentages in tabular presentation. Weighted means and variances were calculated for total PASE scores across identified subgroups (sex, age, and clinical populations) where appropriate using the ‘metamean’ package in RStudio Team (R version 4.2.2, 2020, PBC, Boston, MA). In studies that reported only subgroup mean total PASE score or age, the authors combined the subgroup data using methods recommended in the Cochrane handbook [ 18 ]. Where possible, studies that provided median scores were converted to mean scores using the methodology developed by Wan et al. [ 19 ]. Studies that did not provide sufficient information for either transformation were omitted from some review syntheses. Studies were grouped by income based on the World Bank ratings from 2023 [ 20 ].

The database search produced 6,372 articles and hand searching citations produced another 24 articles for a total of 6,396. A total of 886 studies were assessed for full-text eligibility and 536 articles were found to use the PASE in older adults, 232 of which met all inclusion criteria (i.e., community-dwelling and the PASE was a primary/secondary outcome). An overview of the screening process can be found in PRISMA-ScR flow diagram (Fig.  1 ), and reasons for full-text study exclusions can be found in Additional file 2 Table A2.

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) flow diagram. Searches run on January 25 th , 2023

Summary of PASE use

The PASE was used for a variety of reasons with the most common being to explore the effect of PA on a health outcome(s) (e.g., an association of PA type with all-cause mortality) [ 21 ], and the relationship of a determinant with PA (e.g., the association between walkability and walking time) [ 22 ]. Almost all the studies used the PASE in its entirety (96.55%). The studies that used partial aspects of PASE often focused on leisure time PA (e.g., walking, sport/recreation, and exercise) [ 23 , 24 , 25 ], and two studies focused on walking exclusively [ 26 , 27 ]. Most authors (93.97%) used total PASE scores (i.e., used provided activity weights). Nineteen studies (8.19%) included a measure other than central tendency for total PASE score (e.g., dichotomous, tertiles, quartiles, quintiles). Eleven studies did not use the PASE score but instead operationalized PA using different pieces of the PASE (e.g., frequency, time). Details on the use of PASE are summarized in Table  1 .

The PASE was primarily delivered in person (69.40%) followed by mail (11.21%); 45 studies were either unclear or did not report how the PASE was administered to participants. A total of 15 different versions or languages were reported; the most common version used was English (63.79%). Six studies did not report which version or language the PASE was delivered in. In many cases, only the seminal paper on the English version by Washburn et al. was cited, with no further clarification of the version or modifications made, including several papers from countries where the primary language is not English ( n  = 29).

Study characteristics

A summary of the study characteristics can be found in Table  2 . The PASE was used throughout the world; however, nearly half of the studies were completed in North America (49.57%). In total, studies from 35 different countries were included in this review; the most common countries outside of North America included China ( n  = 20), Australia ( n  = 19), and Japan ( n  = 10). Most studies were conducted in high-income countries (86.64%). The mean age for studies ranged from 60.00 [ 28 ] to 84.40 [ 29 ] with the majority (43.10%) falling between 70–74 years old. Most studies included mixed sex samples ( n  = 184), with only 17 looking at females and 22 at males. Fifty-three studies looked specifically at 21 clinical conditions (e.g., musculoskeletal, cognitive impairment, and cardiorespiratory). The 232 studies of community-dwelling older adults included 171,206 participants, with individual study samples ranging from 8 [ 30 ] to 14,881 [ 31 ]. Studies were published between 1993 [ 13 ] and 2023 [ 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 ]. The PASE was used in a variety of study designs, including cross-sectional studies (60.78%), prospective studies (25.43%), and experimental (12.07%).

Where possible, weighted means for different subgroups were summarised based on age, sex, and clinical population. Studies with a mean age between 60–64 years had the highest mean PASE scores (159.53 (95% CI 146.58, 172.49)) and studies with a mean age over 80 years old had the lowest mean PASE scores (67.17 (95% CI 51.95, 82.39)) (Fig.  2 , Forest plots available in Additional file 1 Figure B1-B5). Figure  3 presents forest plots for the combined total mean PASE score for female only studies ( n  = 13) 123.99 (95% CI 108.09, 139.88) [ 26 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 ] and male only studies ( n  = 14) 136.27 (95% CI 122.46, 150.09) [ 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 ]. Based on data availability, pooled means were created for the following clinical populations: cancer ( n  = 2) [ 28 , 66 ], Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) ( n  = 2) [ 67 , 68 ], cognitive impairment ( n  = 6) [ 33 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 ], Diabetes ( n  = 3) [ 74 , 75 , 76 ], Osteoarthritis ( n  = 12) [ 46 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 82 , 83 , 84 , 85 , 86 , 87 ], and Parkinson’s disease (PD) ( n  = 10) [ 88 , 89 , 90 , 91 , 92 , 93 , 94 , 95 , 96 , 97 ]. Forest plots for clinical populations are available in Additional file 1 Figure B6.

Pooled Mean PASE scores by age groups

Pooled Mean PASE score forest plots for females(1) and males(2)

Psychometric properties of the PASE

Several papers evaluated the psychometric properties of the original PASE ( n  = 5) along with a number of validation studies ( n  = 14) for different translations and clinical populations (acute coronary event [ 98 ], COPD [ 68 ], Cancer [ 28 , 66 ], and Parkinson’s disease [ 89 ]). In total, ten different versions of the PASE were assessed for reliability and/or validity in community-dwelling older adults, including: English ( n  = 5) [ 13 , 14 , 66 , 98 , 99 ], Malay ( n  = 2) [ 100 , 101 ], Arabic ( n  = 1) [ 102 ], Chinese ( n  = 2) [ 68 , 103 ], Italian ( n  = 1) [ 104 ], Norwegian ( n  = 1) [ 105 ], Persian ( n  = 1) [ 106 ], Polish ( n  = 1) [ 107 ], Taiwanese ( n  = 2) [ 28 , 108 ], Turkish ( n  = 1) [ 109 ], and two studies did not report the version [ 65 , 89 ].

Sixteen studies reported on the test-retest reliability of the PASE, time frames ranging from 3 days [ 99 , 105 ] to 3–7 weeks [ 13 ] and sample sizes ranging from 18 [ 98 ] to 349 [ 100 ] (details available in Table  3 ). Across all versions of the PASE 12 studies reporting ICCs for the total score, only two fell below acceptable limits proposed in the COSMIN guidelines [ 110 ] (Malay version 0.49 (95% CI 0.37, 0.59) [ 100 ] and version NR 0.66 (95% CI 0.46–0.71) [ 89 ]). However, the majority of values were 0.90 and above ( n  = 8). Internal consistency was examined in seven versions and all Cronbach alpha’s fell within an acceptable range (0.70 (Arabic and Persian subcategory lowest) to 0.82 (Italian total score)). Only four studies examined measurement error. Alqarni et al. reported the minimal detectable change (MDC95) for PASE subcategories (9.0–23.6) [ 102 ] of the Arabic version and MDC95 for total scores were provided for the Chinese version (19.21) [ 68 ] and the Polish version (38.39) [ 107 ]. Two studies also included standard errors of measurement for the PASE total score (Chinese version 6.93 [ 68 ] and NR version 30.00 [ 89 ]).

Four studies stated they were exploring criterion validity; however, each used a different measurement tool as their gold standard for PA: pedometer (walking steps and energy expenditure) [ 68 ], Actigraph (activity counts/minutes) [ 28 ], International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ) [ 109 ], doubly labeled water (total energy expenditure, energy expenditure/resting metabolic rate) and VO2max [ 65 ]. The PASE was significantly correlated to all but the doubly labelled water outcomes and VO2max [ 65 ]. During the development of the PASE Washburn et al. assessed the three aspects content validity by asking participants ( n  = 36) about the appropriateness of the items, the completeness (i.e., comprehensiveness), and the comprehensibility; results were used to inform the final version of the PASE [ 13 ]. Three additional studies assessed and reported acceptable content validity for the PASE across three different clinical groups: acute coronary events (English) [ 98 ], COPD (Chinese) [ 68 ], and cancer survivors (Taiwanese) [ 28 ]. Only the English version had responsiveness and minimal important difference (MID) reported and this was in a sample of individuals with lung cancer [ 66 ].

Construct validity was the most commonly assessed form of validity, predominantly exploring convergent validity (details available in Table  4 ). Physical function performance measures and self-report questionnaires were commonly cited, and relationships ranged from fair to moderate, including the Timed Up and Go ( r  = -0.45 to r  = -0.69) [ 102 , 106 , 107 ], Berg Balance ( r  = 0.20 to r  = 0.82) [ 14 , 104 , 107 ], and the physical function section of the Short Form-36 ( r  = 0.53 to r  = 0.58) [ 68 , 103 , 109 ]. Muscle strength was another common construct with poor to fair correlations; specifically, grip strength ( r  = 0.29 to r  = 0.43) [ 13 , 68 , 100 , 102 , 103 ], and lower limb strength ( r  = 0.18 to r  = 0.37) [ 13 , 66 , 103 ]. There were also several self-report measures examining general health ( r  = -0.12 to r  = 0.44) [ 13 , 68 , 98 , 100 , 103 ] and activities of daily living ( r  = 0.10 to r  = 0.78) [ 100 , 106 ]. The PASE demonstrated moderate correlations with the IPAQ ( r  = 0.65 to r  = 0.74) [ 68 , 107 , 109 ]. Five studies compared the PASE to a direct measure of PA (e.g., accelerometers and pedometers), including outcomes such as steps per day ( r  = 0.39 to r  = 0.61) [ 66 , 68 , 101 ] and activity counts ( r  = 0.43 to r  = 0.64) with fair to moderate correlations [ 28 , 99 , 101 ]. Only Bonnefoy et al. used the gold standard doubly labelled water, and they found no significant correlations [ 65 ].

To the authors’ knowledge, this is the first review to provide a comprehensive summary of the use of the PASE in community-dwelling older adults. The PASE has been used extensively to measure PA in older adults (536 primary papers before restricting to community-dwelling settings); however, it was mainly used in high-income countries with cross-sectional research designs. While strong evidence was summarized supporting test-retest reliability and construct validity, there was a paucity of evidence examining the PASE’s responsiveness, important change thresholds, and predictive validity. In addition, we have presented pooled means for different age groups and clinical populations to provide preliminary reference values to improve interpretations of total scores.

The PASE has been used extensively in community-dwelling older adults; 171,206 participants from 35 countries were included in this review. The PASE was developed in the United States, which is reflected in the greater uptake in North America and high-income countries [ 13 ]. However, the PASE has been used across five continents and in some middle-income countries ( n  = 8). Importantly, we have seen the validation of several translated versions including Arabic, Chinese, Malay, Persian, and Turkish. Furthermore, the application of the PASE to clinical and disease-specific populations has also occurred, and the high content validity in these populations is promising. The use of the PASE in persons with chronic conditions has been supported previously based on feasibility and psychometric properties [ 5 ]. While the literature summarized is extensive, more is available outside of community-dwelling populations not captured in this review, including further translations and validations (e.g., Nigerian translation) [ 111 ]. Our results show the PASE is a commonly used measure of worldwide but has been used sparingly in countries outside of North America and in lower-income countries. Decreasing the heterogeneity in how PA is measured is imperative for meaningful comparisons and data harmonization. Large numbers of self-report PA measures already exist, and previous work has recommended using these rather than creating more [ 12 , 112 ]. This review shows the large uptake of the PASE, presenting a suitable choice for research on older adults. However, it is important that psychometric measures are assessed for the population of interest.

Psychometric properties are essential for outcome measures to ensure their validity, reliability, and interpretability. Of the 232 studies included, 19 studies aimed to examine the psychometric properties of the PASE in community-dwelling older adults. According to COSMIN, most studies (12/15) found acceptable test-retest reliability for the PASE total score. However, there was variability between studies that was more pronounced between subcategories of activity types (e.g., ICC subcategory values 0.56–0.94 [ 99 ], 0.76–0.93 [ 106 ], 0.78–0.99 [ 107 ]), which may suggest more variation week to week in single activity types and less for overall activity. There was a paucity of evidence on measurement error, including MDC and standard error of measurement. Of the four studies reporting in this area, one only provided values for activity subcategories, not total score [ 102 ], and two were for clinical populations (COPD and Parkinson’s disease). The varying populations may explain the large difference in values (e.g., MDC95 = 38.4 (general) vs MDC95 = 19.2(COPD); and SEM = 30 (PD) vs SEM = 6.9 (COPD)). Establishing the minimal detectable change values is essential for ensuring differences are real and not from measurement error. In addition, none of the included studies reported minimal clinically important differences (MCID), another important parameter for interpreting change in score. This paucity of evidence must be addressed across versions in community-dwelling older adults to support further use and interpretability of the PASE.

The PASE was validated in community-dwelling older adults in ten different languages. Content validity is regarded as the most important psychometric measurement property [ 113 ]; however, other than the sentinel paper, only three included studies reported on the relevance, comprehensiveness, and comprehensibility [ 28 , 68 , 98 ]. As presented in these papers, PA appears to be influenced by cultural/societal norms, highlighting the importance and continued need to verify the content validity of PA questionnaires when validating in new populations [ 28 ]. Fair to moderate relationships between the PASE and performance-based measures of physical function and mobility, strength, and health outcomes were regularly reported for construct validity. Four studies stated they examined criterion validity, which compares the PASE score to the gold standard of the same construct. However, only one study used the commonly regarded gold standard of PA doubly labelled water and did not find a significant relationship [ 65 ]. The remaining three studies found moderate correlations (> 0.60) using more accessible measures of PA: a pedometer [ 68 ], accelerometer [ 28 ], and a questionnaire [ 109 ]. The PASE-Polish [ 107 ] demonstrated the highest correlation at 0.74 with the IPAQ, which has been validated in 12 different countries, including low-income countries and rural samples [ 114 ]. The IPAQ was the only PA questionnaire reported, and only two other studies compared direct measures of PA (i.e., accelerometers). The correlations with the IPAQ ranged from 0.65–0.74, whereas correlations with direct measures tended to be lower and more variable (e.g., activity counts 0.43–64, walking steps 0.39–0.61). Several PASE versions did not contain a measure of PA in their validity analysis ( n  = 3). Further studies investigating these metrics using a wider variety of measures of PA (e.g., different questionnaires and more direct measures) are needed to clarify these relationships.

No studies reported on longitudinal validity, demonstrating a great need for studies to evaluate the PASE’s predictive validity for important health outcomes in community-dwelling populations across the globe. Despite almost 20 studies using the PASE to measure change in PA, responsiveness, which is critical for ensuring the PASE can accurately reflect change over time, has not been reported in any of the included studies. Therefore, research is needed to explore the predictive validity and responsiveness of the PASE to inform whether the PASE can be used to predict important health outcomes (e.g., future falls, hospitalization) and change in PA (e.g., over time or through intervention) for community-dwelling older adults.

A noteworthy finding of this review was the reporting of pooled means by age, sex, and clinical population. Pooled PASE scores decreased with increasing age groups from < 65 (159.53 (95% CI 146.58, 172.49)) to the 80 years and older group (67.17 (95% CI 51.95, 82.39)). In general, this is consistent with the literature where levels of PA progressively decrease with age for both men and women [ 115 , 116 ]. Some clinical populations appeared to have greater decreases in PA than others (e.g., cognitive impairment 91.11 (95% CI 72.77, 109.40) vs osteoarthritis 129.53 (95% CI 110.40, 148.65)). Clinical groups also appear to be important in addition to age for PA level; for example, the studies in the cognitive impairment group were mostly younger age groups (5/6 less than 80 years old), but the mean PASE score was closer to the two oldest age groups. The provided reference data for age, sex, and clinical population can be used to improve the interpretability of PASE scores among similar populations of community-dwelling older adults. However, future research creating normative values for the PASE could further improve interpretability and uptake of this questionnaire.

There are several limitations of this scoping review that should be acknowledged. First, several eligibility criteria were placed on this review, resulting in papers related to the PASE being excluded. Specifically, studies were restricted to the English language, age of 60 years or older, and community-dwelling settings. These decisions were made for feasibility and to reflect the original PASE; however, they have limited our understanding of how far the PASE has been applied in different populations. With the robust search strategy reviewed by a health research librarian, we are confident that the summarized evidence accurately reflects the current literature for community-dwelling older adults. A second limitation is that only published studies were included, and grey literature was not considered, which opens the possibility that new and emerging research regarding the PASE was missed. Finally, several studies used data from the same databases/studies, resulting in the same or overlapping samples; we did not extract the information necessary to tease this apart. Therefore, pooled means will be biased toward samples included more than once. In addition, pooled mean PASE scores in clinical populations with only two studies should be interpreted cautiously due to limited sample sizes.

This review has identified areas for future consideration, including further expanding the validation of the PASE to middle- and low-income countries. A systematic review focused on the psychometric properties of the PASE with no setting restrictions may provide a valuable resource for researchers. Future investigations are needed on psychometric properties of the PASE, including thresholds of important change, responsiveness, and predictive validity for all versions of the PASE, as well as data on psychometric properties in specific clinical populations.

This review found that the PASE is a widely used PA measure among community-dwelling older adults, with evidence supporting its test-retest reliability and construct validity. The widespread use of a questionnaire increases the ability for data harmonization across studies and improves the ability to compare between studies. Further research is warranted to investigate the PASE’s ability to detect meaningful change (i.e., MDC, MCID) along with predictive validity and responsiveness. Pooled mean total PASE scores reported in this review can provide preliminary reference values for different age groups and clinical populations to help improve the interpretability of PASE scores until normative values are established.

Availability of data and materials

All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article [and its supplementary information files].

Abbreviations

Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

International Physical Activity Questionnaire - Short Form

• Physical activity

Physical Activity Scale for the Elderly

Parkinson’s Disease

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews

Minimal clinical important difference

Minimal detectable change

Intraclass correlation coefficient

Interquartile range

Standard deviation

Standard error of measurement

Timed Up and Go

World Health Organization

Not reported

Confidence Interval

Statistics Canada. Census in Brief: A portrait of Canada’s growing population aged 85 and older from the 2021 Census. Catalogue no. 98-200-X(2021004). 2022. Available from: https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2021/as-sa/98-200-X/2021004/98-200-X2021004-eng.cfm#moreinfo .

Kirkland SA, Griffith LE, Menec V, Wister A, Payette H, Wolfson C, et al. Mining a unique Canadian resource: the Canadian longitudinal study on aging. Can J Aging. 2015;34(3):366–77.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Decade of healthy aging: baseline report. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2020. Licence: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO.

Cunningham C, O’Sullivan R. Why physical activity matters for older adults in a time of pandemic. Eur Rev Aging Phys Act. 2020;17(1):16.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Garnett A, Ploeg J, Markle-Reid M, Strachan PH. Self-report tools for assessing physical activity in community-living older adults with multiple chronic conditions: a systematic review of psychometric properties and feasibility. Can J Aging. 2020;39(1):12–30.

Mcphee JS, French DP, Jackson D, Nazroo J, Pendleton N, Degens H. Physical activity in older age: perspectives for healthy ageing and frailty. Biogerontology. 2016;17(3):567–80.

Steeves JA, Shiroma EJ, Conger SA, Van Domelen D, Harris TB. Physical activity patterns and multimorbidity burden of older adults with different levels of functional status: NHANES 2003–2006. Disabil Health J. 2019;12(3):495–502.

WHO guidelines on physical activity and sedentary behaviour. Geneva: Worl Health Organization; 2020.

Mayo A, Sénéchal M, Boudreau J, Bélanger M, Bouchard DR. Potential functional benefits of a comprehensive evaluation of physical activity for aging adults: a CLSA cross-sectional analysis. Aging Clin Exp Res. 2021;33(2):285–9.

Ross R, Chaput JP, Giangregorio LM, Janssen I, Saunders TJ, Kho ME, et al. Canadian 24-hour movement guidelines for adults aged 18–64 years and adults aged 65 years or older: an integration of physical activity, sedentary behaviour, and sleep. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab. 2020;45(10 (Suppl. 2)):S57–102.

Rao AK. Wearable Sensor Technology to Measure Physical Activity (PA) in the Elderly. Current Geriatrics Reports. 2019;8(1):55–66.

Sattler MC, Jaunig J, Tosch C, Watson ED, Mokkink LB, Dietz P, et al. Current evidence of measurement properties of physical activity questionnaires for older adults: an updated systematic review. Sports Med (Auckland, NZ). 2020;50(7):1271–315.

Article   Google Scholar  

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.

Washburn RA, McAuley E, Katula J, Mihalko SL, Boileau RA. The physical activity scale for the elderly (PASE): evidence for validity. J Clin Epidemiol. 1999;52(7):643–51.

Aromataris E, Munn Z. JBI manual for evidence synthesis. 2020.

Google Scholar  

Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O’Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D, et al. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169(7):467–73.

United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs PD. World Population Ageing 2017. 2017;ST/ESA/SER.A/408. Available from: https://www.un.org/development/desa/pd/sites/www.un.org.development.desa.pd/files/files/documents/2020/May/un_2017_worldpopulationageing_report.pdf .

Higgins J, Li T, Deeks JE. Chapter 6: Choosing effect measures and computing estimates of effect. In: Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Welch VA, editors. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 62 (updated February 2021). Cochrane; 2021. Available from www.training.cochrane.org/handbook .

Wan X, Wang W, Liu J, Tong T. Estimating the sample mean and standard deviation from the sample size, median, range and/or interquartile range. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014;14(1):135.

The World Bank. World Bank Country and Lending Groups - World Bank Data Help Desk. The World Bank Group. Available from: https://datahelpdesk.worldbank.org/knowledgebase/articles/906519-world-bank-country-and-lending-groups .Cited 2021 July.

Yu R, Leung J, Woo J. Housework reduces all-cause and cancer mortality in Chinese men. PLoS One. 2013;8(5):e61529.

Yu R, Cheung O, Lau K, Woo J. Associations between perceived neighborhood walkability and walking time, wellbeing, and loneliness in community-dwelling older Chinese people in Hong Kong. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2017;14(10):1199.

Liang Y, Lai FTT, Kwan JLY, Chan W, Yeoh E-K. Sport and recreational physical activities attenuate the predictive association of multimorbidity with increased geriatric depressive symptoms: a 14-year follow-up study of community-dwelling older adults. J Aging Phys Act. 2022;30(2):252–60.

Kitano N, Tsunoda K, Tsuji T, Osuka Y, Jindo T, Tanaka K, et al. Association between difficulty initiating sleep in older adults and the combination of leisure-time physical activity and consumption of milk and milk products: a cross-sectional study. BMC Geriatr. 2014;14:118.

Wang YF, Li NY, Zhu JJ, Deng Q, Hu JLL, Xu J, et al. Association between socio-ecological factors and leisure time physical activity (LTPA) among older adults in Sichuan, China: a structural equation modeling analysis. BMC Geriatr. 2022;22(1):60.

Kenny AM, Dawson L, Kleppinger A, Iannuzzi-Sucich M, Judge JO. Prevalence of sarcopenia and predictors of skeletal muscle mass in nonobese women who are long-term users of estrogen-replacement therapy. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2003;58(5):M436–40.

Julien D, Gauvin L, Richard L, Kestens Y, Payette H. Longitudinal associations between walking frequency and depressive symptoms in older adults: results from the VoisiNuAge study. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2013;61(12):2072–8.

Su C-C, Lee K-D, Yeh C-H, Kao C-C, Lin C-C. Measurement of physical activity in cancer survivors: a validity study. J Cancer Surviv. 2014;8(2):205–12.

Moored KD, Qiao Y, Boudreau RM, Roe LS, Cawthon PM, Cauley JA, et al. Prospective associations between physical activity and perceived fatigability in older men: differences by activity type and baseline marital status. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2022;77(12):2498–506.

Li JX, Hodgson N, Lyons MM, Chen KC, Yu F, Gooneratne NS. A personalized behavioral intervention implementing mHealth technologies for older adults: a pilot feasibility study. Geriatr Nurs. 2020;41(3):313–9.

Chang VC, Do MT. Risk factors for falls among seniors: implications of gender. Am J Epidemiol. 2015;181(7):521–31.

Bernstein JP, Noland MD, Dorociak KE, Leese MI, Lee SY, Hughes A. Executive functioning predicts discrepancies between objective and self-reported physical activity in older adults: a pilot study. Aging Neuropsychol Cogn. 2023;30(1):124–34.

Boa Sorte Silva NC, Dao E, Hsu CL, Tam RC, Lam K, Alkeridy W, et al. Myelin and Physical Activity in Older Adults with Cerebral Small Vessel Disease and Mild Cognitive Impairment. The journals of gerontology Series A, Biological sciences and medical sciences. 2022;78(3):545–3.

Escher C, Asken BM, VandeBunte A, Fonseca C, You M, Kramer JH, et al. Roles of physical activity and diet in cognitive aging: is more better? The Clinical neuropsychologist. 2022;37(2):1–18.

Haggard AV, Tennant JE, Shaikh FD, Hamel R, Kline PW, Zukowski LA. Including cognitive assessments with functional testing predicts capabilities relevant to everyday walking in older adults. Gait Posture. 2023;100:75–81.

Ibrahim AM, Singh DKA, Mat S, Mat Ludin AF, Shahar S. Incidence and Predictors of Physical Inactivity Among Malaysian Community-Dwelling Older Persons. Journal of aging and physical activity. 2022;31(1):105–6.

Gregorio L, Brindisi J, Kleppinger A, Sullivan R, Mangano KM, Bihuniak JD, et al. Adequate dietary protein is associated with better physical performance among post-menopausal women 60–90 years. J Nutr Health Aging. 2014;18(2):155–60.

Nemmers TM, Miller JW. Factors influencing balance in healthy community-dwelling women age 60 and older. J Geriatr Phys Ther (2001). 2008;31(3):93–100.

McAuley E, Hall KS, Motl RW, White SM, Wojcicki TR, Hu L, et al. Trajectory of declines in physical activity in community-dwelling older women: social cognitive influences. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 2009;64(5):543–50.

McAuley E, Morris KS, Doerksen SE, Motl RW, Hu L, White SM, et al. Effects of change in physical activity on physical function limitations in older women: mediating roles of physical function performance and self-efficacy. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2007;55(12):1967–73.

Martin FC, Hart D, Spector T, Doyle DV, Harari D. Fear of falling limiting activity in young-old women is associated with reduced functional mobility rather than psychological factors. Age Ageing. 2005;34(3):281–7.

Morris KS, McAuley E, Motl RW. Neighborhood satisfaction, functional limitations, and self-efficacy influences on physical activity in older women. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2008;5:13.

Legg HS, Arnold CM, Trask C, Lanovaz JL. Does functional performance and upper body strength predict upper extremity reaction and movement time in older women? Hum Mov Sci. 2021;77:102796.

Leis KS, Reeder BA, Chad KE, Spink KS, Fisher KL, Bruner BG. The relationship of chronic disease and demographic variables to physical activity in a sample of women aged 65 to 79 years. Women Health. 2010;50(5):459–74.

Liu-Ambrose T, Khan KM, Eng JJ, Lord SR, McKay HA. Balance confidence improves with resistance or agility training - Increase is not correlated with objective changes in fall risk and physical abilities. Gerontology. 2004;50(6):373–82.

Lange AK, Singh MAF, Smith RM, Foroughi N, Baker MK, Shnier R, et al. Degenerative meniscus tears and mobility impairment in women with knee osteoarthritis. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2007;15(6):701–8.

Greenspan SL, Resnick NM, Parker RA. The effect of hormone replacement on physical performance in community-dwelling elderly women. Am J Med. 2005;118(11):1232–9.

Newton RA, Cromwell RL, Rogers HL. The relationship between physical performance and obesity in elderly African-American women. Phys Occup Ther Geriatr. 2009;27(6):423–40.

Talley KMC, Wyman JF, Gross CR, Lindquist RA, Gaugler JE. Change in balance confidence and its associations with increasing disability in older community-dwelling women at risk for falling. J Aging Health. 2014;26(4):616–36.

Kenny AM, Kleppinger A, Wang Y, Prestwood KM. Effects of ultra-low-dose estrogen therapy on muscle and physical function in older women. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2005;53(11):1973–7.

Bellantonio S, Fortinsky R, Prestwood K. How well are community-living women treated for osteoporosis after hip fracture? J Am Geriatr Soc. 2001;49(9):1197–204.

Klima DW. Physical performance and balance confidence among community-dwelling older adult men. 2010. (Ph.D.). p. 159.

Eendebak RJAH, Ahern T, Swiecicka A, Pye SR, O’Neill TW, Bartfai G, et al. Elevated luteinizing hormone despite normal testosterone levels in older men-natural history, risk factors and clinical features. Clin Endocrinol. 2018;88(3):479–90.

Laddu D, Parimi N, Cauley JA, Cawthon PM, Ensrud KE, Orwoll E, et al. The association between trajectories of physical activity and all-cause and cause-specific mortality. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2018;73(12):1708–13.

Lange-Maia BS, Cauley JA, Newman AB, Boudreau RM, Jakicic JM, Glynn NW, et al. Sensorimotor peripheral nerve function and physical activity in older men. J Aging Phys Act. 2016;24(4):559–66.

Mackey DC, Hubbard AE, Cawthon PM, Cauley JA, Cummings SR, Tager IB. Usual physical activity and hip fracture in older men: an application of semiparametric methods to observational data. Am J Epidemiol. 2011;173(5):578–86.

Cousins JM, Petit MA, Paudel ML, Taylor BC, Hughes JM, Cauley JA, et al. Muscle power and physical activity are associated with bone strength in older men: the osteoporotic fractures in men study. Bone. 2010;47(2):205–11.

Mesinovic J, Scott D, Seibel MJ, Cumming RG, Naganathan V, Blyth FM, et al. Risk factors for incident falls and fractures in older men with and without type 2 diabetes mellitus: the Concord Health and Ageing in Men Project. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2021;76(6):1090–100.

Hsu B, Merom D, Blyth FM, Naganathan V, Hirani V, Le Couteur DG, et al. Total physical activity, exercise intensity, and walking speed as predictors of all-cause and cause-specific mortality over 7 years in older men: the Concord Health and Aging in Men Project. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2018;19(3):216–22.

Ng CA, Scott D, Seibel MJ, Cumming RG, Naganathan V, Blyth FM, et al. Higher Impact Physical Activity is Associated with Maintenance of Bone Mineral Density but Not Reduced Incident Falls or Fractures in Older Men: The Concord Health and Ageing in Men Project. Journal of bone and mineral research : the official journal of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research. 2020;36(4):662–72.

Cronholm F, Rosengren BE, Nilsson J, Ohlsson C, Mellstrom D, Ribom E, et al. The fracture predictive ability of a musculoskeletal composite score in old men - data from the MrOs Sweden study. BMC Geriatr. 2019;19(1):90.

Kenny AM, Biskup B, Robbins B, Marcella G, Burleson JA. Effects of vitamin D supplementation on strength, physical function, and health perception in older, community-dwelling men. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2003;51(12):1762–7.

Kenny AM, Prestwood KM, Kenny AM, Prestwood KM, Marcello KM, Raisz LG. Determinants of bone density in healthy older men with low testosterone levels. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2000;55(9):M492–7.

Liu PY, Wishart SM, Handelsman DJ. A double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial of recombinant human chorionic gonadotropin on muscle strength and physical function and activity in older men with partial age-related androgen deficiency. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2002;87(7):3125–35.

Bonnefoy M, Normand S, Pachiaudi C, Lacour JR, Laville M, Kostka T. Simultaneous validation of ten physical activity questionnaires in older men: a doubly labeled water study. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2001;49(1):28–35.

Granger C, Parry S, Denehy L, Granger CL, Parry SM. The self-reported Physical Activity Scale for the Elderly (PASE) is a valid and clinically applicable measure in lung cancer. Support Care Cancer. 2015;23(11):3211–8.

Oliveira CC, McGinley J, Lee AL, Irving LB, Denehy L. Fear of falling in people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Respir Med. 2015;109(4):483–9.

Tao Y-X, Wang L, Dong X-Y, Zheng H, Zheng Y-S, Tang X-Y, et al. Psychometric properties of the Physical Activity Scale for the Elderly in Chinese patients with COPD. Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis. 2017;12:105–14.

Burns JM, Mayo MS, Anderson HS, Smith HJ, Donnelly JE. Cardiorespiratory fitness in early-stage Alzheimer disease. Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord. 2008;22(1):39–46.

Farina N, Tabet N, Rusted J. Habitual physical activity (HPA) as a factor in sustained executive function in Alzheimer-type dementia: a cohort study. Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2014;59(1):91–7.

Lin YP, Yang YH, Hsiao SF. Physical activity, muscle strength, and functional fitness: comparing older adults with and without Alzheimer dementia. Top Geriatr Rehabil. 2019;35(4):280–8.

Talamonti D, Gagnon C, Vincent T, Nigam A, Lesage F, Bherer L, et al. Exploring cognitive and brain oxygenation changes over a 1-year period in physically active individuals with mild cognitive impairment: a longitudinal fNIRS pilot study. BMC Geriatr. 2022;22(1):648.

van Santen J, Droes RM, Twisk JWR, Henkemans OAB, van Straten A, Meiland FJM. Effects of exergaming on cognitive and social functioning of people with dementia: a randomized controlled trial. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2020;21(12):1958-#x0002B;

El Rahi B, Shatenstein B, Morais JA. The joint effects of diet quality and physical activity on functional decline among diabetic older adults from the NuAge cohort. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2013;61(SUPPL. 1):S209.

Rahi B, Morais JA, Gaudreau P, Payette H, Shatenstein B. Decline in functional capacity is unaffected by diet quality alone or in combination with physical activity among generally healthy older adults with T2D from the NuAge cohort. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2014;105(3):399–407.

Sazlina S-G, Browning CJ, Yasin S. Effectiveness of personalized feedback alone or combined with peer support to improve physical activity in sedentary older Malays with type 2 diabetes: a randomized controlled trial. Front Public Health. 2015;3:178.

Barker KL, Room J, Knight R, Dutton S, Toye F, Leal J, et al. Home-based rehabilitation programme compared with traditional physiotherapy for patients at risk of poor outcome after knee arthroplasty: the CORKA randomised controlled trial. BMJ Open. 2021;11(8):e052598.

Batsis JA, Zbehlik AJ, Barre LK, Bynum JPW, Pidgeon D, Bartels SJ. Impact of obesity on disability, function, and physical activity: data from the Osteoarthritis Initiative. Scand J Rheumatol. 2015;44(6):495–502.

Bennell KL, Ahamed Y, Jull G, Bryant C, Hunt MA, Forbes AB, et al. Physical therapist-delivered pain coping skills training and exercise for knee osteoarthritis: randomized controlled trial. Arthritis Care Res. 2016;68(5):590–602.

Bieler T, Anderson T, Beyer N, Rosthoj S. The impact of self-efficacy on activity limitations in patients with hip osteoarthritis: results from a cross-sectional study. ACR Open Rheumatol. 2020;2(12):741–9.

Chmelo E, Nicklas B, Davis C, Legault C, Miller GD, Messier S. Physical activity and physical function in older adults with knee osteoarthritis. J Phys Act Health. 2013;10(6):777–83.

Dunlop DD, Semanik P, Song J, Sharma L, Nevitt M, Jackson R, et al. Moving to maintain function in knee osteoarthritis: evidence from the Osteoarthritis Initiative. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2010;91(5):714–21.

Hinman RS, Wrigley TV, Metcalf BR, Campbell PK, Paterson KL, Hunter DJ, et al. Unloading shoes for self-management of knee osteoarthritis: a randomized trial. Ann Intern Med. 2016;165(6):381–9.

McDonald DD, Shellman JM, Graham L, Harrison L. The relationship between reminiscence functions, optimism, depressive symptoms, physical activity, and pain in older adults. Res Gerontol Nurs. 2016;9(5):223–31.

Sharma L, Cahue S, Song J, Hayes K, Pai Y, Dunlop D. Physical functioning over three years in knee osteoarthritis: role of psychosocial, local mechanical, and neuromuscular factors. Arthritis Rheum. 2003;48(12):3359–70.

Skou ST, Wise BL, Lewis CE, Felson D, Nevitt M, Segal NA. Muscle strength, physical performance and physical activity as predictors of future knee replacement: a prospective cohort study. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2016;24(8):1350–6.

Smith TO, Mansfield M, Dainty J, Hilton G, Mann CJV, Sackley CM. Does physical activity change following hip and knee replacement? Matched case-control study evaluating Physical Activity Scale for the Elderly data from the Osteoarthritis Initiative. Physiotherapy. 2018;104(1):80–90.

Amara AW, Chahine L, Seedorff N, Caspell-Garcia CJ, Coffey C, Simuni T, et al. Self-reported physical activity levels and clinical progression in early Parkinson’s disease. Parkinsonism Relat Disord. 2019;61:118–25.

Ånfors S, Kammerlind A-S, Nilsson MH. Test-retest reliability of physical activity questionnaires in Parkinson’s disease. BMC Neurol. 2021;21(1):1–13.

Ashburn A, Pickering R, McIntosh E, Hulbert S, Rochester L, Roberts HC, et al. Exercise- and strategy-based physiotherapy-delivered intervention for preventing repeat falls in people with Parkinson’s: the PDSAFE RCT. Health Technol Assess (Winchester, England). 2019;23(36):1–150.

Balci B, Aktar B, Buran S, Tas M, Colakoglu BD. Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on physical activity, anxiety, and depression in patients with Parkinson’s disease. Int J Rehabil Res. 2021;44(2):173–6.

Bryant MS, Hou JG, Collins RL, Protas EJ. Contribution of axial motor impairment to physical inactivity in Parkinson disease. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2016;95(5):348–54.

Bryant MS, Kang GE, Protas EJ. Relation of chair rising ability to activities of daily living and physical activity in Parkinson’s disease. Arch Physiother. 2020;10(1):22.

Bryant MS, Rintala DH, Hou J-G, Protas EJ. Relationship of falls and fear of falling to activity limitations and physical inactivity in Parkinson’s disease. J Aging Phys Act. 2015;23(2):187–93.

Ellis T, Cavanaugh JT, Earhart GM, Ford MP, Foreman KB, Fredman L, et al. Factors associated with exercise behavior in people with Parkinson disease. Phys Ther. 2011;91(12):1838–48.

Mantri S, Wood S, Duda JE, Morley JF. Understanding physical activity in Veterans with Parkinson disease: a mixed-methods approach. Parkinsonism Relat Disord. 2019;61:156–60.

Mantri S, Wood S, Duda JE, Morley JF. Comparing self-reported and objective monitoring of physical activity in Parkinson disease. Parkinsonism Relat Disord. 2019;67:56–9.

Allison MJ, Keller C, Hutchinson PL. Selection of an instrument to measure the physical activity of elderly people in rural areas. Rehabil Nurs. 1998;23(6):309–14.

Dinger MK, Oman F, Taylor EL, Vesely SK, Able J. Stability and convergent validity of the Physical Activity Scale for the Elderly (PASE). J Sports Med Phys Fitness. 2004;44(2):186–92.

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Ismail N, Hairi F, Choo WY, Hairi NN, Peramalah D, Bulgiba A. The Physical Activity Scale for the Elderly (PASE): validity and reliability among community-dwelling older adults in Malaysia. Asia Pac J Public Health. 2015;27(8 Suppl):62S-72S.

Singh DKA, Rahman NNAA, Rajaratnam BS, Yi TC, Shahar S. Validity and reliability of physical activity scale for elderly in Malay language (PASE-M). Malays J Public Health Med. 2018;2018(Specialissue1):116–23.

Alqarni AM, Vennu V, Alshammari SA, Bindawas SM. Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Arabic version of the Physical Activity Scale for the Elderly among community-dwelling older adults in Saudi Arabia. Clin Interv Aging. 2018;13:419–27.

Ngai SP, Cheung RT, Lam PL, Chiu JK, Fung EY. Validation and reliability of the Physical Activity Scale for the Elderly in Chinese population. J Rehabil Med. 2012;44(5):462–5.

Covotta A, Gagliardi M, Berardi A, Maggi G, Pierelli F, Mollica R, et al. Physical Activity Scale for the Elderly: Translation, Cultural Adaptation, and Validation of the Italian Version. Current Gerontology & Geratrics Research. 2018;8294568:1–7.

Loland NW. Reliability of the physical activity scale for the elderly (PASE). Eur J Sport Sci. 2002;2(5):1–12.

Keikavoosi-Arani L, Salehi L. Cultural adaptation and psychometric adequacy of the Persian version of the physical activity scale for the elderly (P-PASE). BMC Res Notes. 2019;12(1):555.

Wisniowska-Szurlej A, Cwirlej-Sozanska A, Woloszyn N, Sozanski B, Wilmowska-Pietruszynska A, Washburn R. Cultural adaptation and validation of the Polish version of the physical activity scale for older people living in a community: a cross-sectional study. Eur Rev Aging Phys Act. 2020;17(1):19.

Wu C-Y, Su T-P, Fang C-L, Yeh CM. Sleep quality among community-dwelling elderly people and its demographic, mental, and physical correlates. J Chin Med Assoc. 2012;75(2):75–80.

Ayvat E, Kilinc M, Kirdi N. The Turkish version of the Physical Activity Scale for the Elderly (PASE): its cultural adaptation, validation, and reliability. Turk J Med Sci. 2017;47(3):908–15.

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.

Okoye EC, Akosile CO, Maruf FA, Onwuakagba IU, Chukwuma VC. Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of Nigerian (Igbo) version of the physical activity scale for the elderly. J Aging Phys Act. 2021;29(4):553–61.

D’Amore C, Saunders S, Bhatnagar N, Griffith LE, Richardson J, Beauchamp MK. Determinants of physical activity in community-dwelling older adults: an umbrella review. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2023;20(1):135.

Terwee CB, Prinsen CAC, Chiarotto A, Westerman MJ, Patrick DL, Alonso J, et al. COSMIN methodology for evaluating the content validity of patient-reported outcome measures: a Delphi study. Qual Life Res. 2018;27(5):1159–70.

Craig CL, Marshall AL, Sjöström M, Bauman AE, Booth ML, Ainsworth BE, et al. International physical activity questionnaire: 12-country reliability and validity. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2003;35(8):1381–95.

Sun F, Norman IJ, While AE. Physical activity in older people: a systematic review. BMC Public Health. 2013;13(1):449.

Aleksovska K, Puggina A, Giraldi L, Buck C, Burns C, Cardon G, et al. Biological determinants of physical activity across the life course: a “Determinants of Diet and Physical Activity” (DEDIPAC) umbrella systematic literature review. Sports Med Open. 2019;5(1):2.

Download references

Acknowledgements

Ms. Neera Bhatnagar, a librarian at Health Sciences Library at McMaster University, for guiding the authors in the development of the search strategy.

Not applicable.

Author information

Cassandra D’Amore and Lexie Lajambe are co-first authors.

Authors and Affiliations

School of Rehabilitation Science, Faculty of Health Sciences, Institute of Applied Health Sciences, McMaster University, 1400 Main St. West Hamilton, Room 403, Hamilton, ON, L8S 1C7, Canada

Cassandra D’Amore, Lexie Lajambe, Noah Bush, Sydney Hiltz, Justin Laforest, Isabella Viel, Qiukui Hao & Marla Beauchamp

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

MB and CD conceptualized the research question; LL, NB, SH, JL, IV in consultation with Ms Bhatnagar and CD, QH, and MB created protocol and search strategies. NB, LL, SH, JL, IV and CD carried out screening and extracting papers. JL, CD and QH carried out analyses and all authors contributed to the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marla Beauchamp .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate, consent for publication, competing interests.

Author MB is supported by a Tier 2 Canada Research Chair in Mobility, Aging and Chronic Disease.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1. additional methods and results details., additional file 2. full list of included and excluded studies., additional file 3. data extraction sheet., rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

D’Amore, C., Lajambe, L., Bush, N. et al. Mapping the extent of the literature and psychometric properties for the Physical Activity Scale for the Elderly (PASE) in community-dwelling older adults: a scoping review. BMC Geriatr 24 , 761 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-024-05332-3

Download citation

Received : 11 April 2024

Accepted : 26 August 2024

Published : 14 September 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-024-05332-3

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Psychometrics
• Questionnaire

BMC Geriatrics

ISSN: 1471-2318

• General enquiries: [email protected]