Singapore, elder mistreatment remains underreported, thereby preventing early identification and intervention. The current study focuses on measuring the prevalence rate of and factors associated with elder mistreatment by interviewing 400 non-institutionalized older adults in Singapore. Method A cross-sectional study, involving door-to-door surveys, was conducted in Singapore. Based on the familiarity of the researcher, one of the top three residential areas with a high concentration of older adults was purposely chosen as the study area. Using the Housing Development Blocks, 80 residential blocks were randomly selected. In instances where there were few residential units in a block, the block was combined with adjacent residential blocks. In each of the blocks, using a sampling interval of three houses, five older adults were interviewed. The sample unit was an older adult who was age 60 years or over, a Singaporean citizen or a permanent resident, and who did not need a proxy to be interviewed. The total number of older adults interviewed was 400. Because of the absence of a sampling frame and the use of door-to-door surveys, the dropout rate could not be computed. The research was approved by the appropriate institutional review board. Data collection The questionnaire was translated into three official languages: Mandarin, Malay, and Tamil. It was pilot tested before being administered as part of the main survey. Potential cases of cognitive impairment were ruled out through a clock test. Mistreatment was measured using ten items from the Hwalek-Sengstock Elder Abuse Screening Test (Neale, Hwalek, Scott, & Stahl, 1991), and the Vulnerability to Abuse Screening Scale (Schofield, & Mishra, 2003). Dong, Chen, Fulmer, & Simon (2014) used a similar scale to assess elder mistreatment among Chinese older adults. Sample items include
Singapore, elder mistreatment remains underreported, thereby preventing early identification and intervention. The current study focuses on measuring the prevalence rate of and factors associated with elder mistreatment by interviewing 400 non-institutionalized older adults in Singapore. Method A cross-sectional study, involving door-to-door surveys, was conducted in Singapore. Based on the familiarity of the researcher, one of the top three residential areas with a high concentration of older adults was purposely chosen as the study area. Using the Housing Development Blocks, 80 residential blocks were randomly selected. In instances where there were few residential units in a block, the block was combined with adjacent residential blocks. In each of the blocks, using a sampling interval of three houses, five older adults were interviewed. The sample unit was an older adult who was age 60 years or over, a Singaporean citizen or a permanent resident, and who did not need a proxy to be interviewed. The total number of older adults interviewed was 400. Because of the absence of a sampling frame and the use of door-to-door surveys, the dropout rate could not be computed. The research was approved by the appropriate institutional review board. Data collection The questionnaire was translated into three official languages: Mandarin, Malay, and Tamil. It was pilot tested before being administered as part of the main survey. Potential cases of cognitive impairment were ruled out through a clock test. Mistreatment was measured using ten items from the Hwalek-Sengstock Elder Abuse Screening Test (Neale, Hwalek, Scott, & Stahl, 1991), and the Vulnerability to Abuse Screening Scale (Schofield, & Mishra, 2003). Dong, Chen, Fulmer, & Simon (2014) used a similar scale to assess elder mistreatment among Chinese older adults. Sample items include