The Assessment of Long-Term Care Environments for Wayfinding Design.

IF 1.7 4区 医学 Q3 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH Herd-Health Environments Research & Design Journal Pub Date : 2023-10-01 Epub Date: 2023-06-27 DOI:10.1177/19375867231180905
Rebecca Davis, Margaret Calkins, Hui Cai
{"title":"The Assessment of Long-Term Care Environments for Wayfinding Design.","authors":"Rebecca Davis, Margaret Calkins, Hui Cai","doi":"10.1177/19375867231180905","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The purpose of this article is to compare three different methods to assess the complexity of a long-term care (LTC) environment for wayfinding before and after an environmental design intervention. The methods include space syntax (SS), the Wayfinding Checklist (WC), and the Tool to Assess Wayfinding Complexity (TAWC).</p><p><strong>Background: </strong>Wayfinding is important to maintain older adults' independent functioning. The design of environments can impact wayfinding ability by providing support; this can be via building structure or by environmental design features such as signage and landmarks. Few methods or tools have been scientifically validated to assess environments for wayfinding complexity. In order to compare environments in terms of complexity and to measure the impact of interventions, valid and reliable tools are necessary.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This article discusses the results of the use of three wayfinding design assessment tools using three routes in one LTC environment. The results of the three tools are discussed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>SS analysis could quantitatively measure the complexity of routes using integration values, which indicates connectedness. The TAWC and the WC were able to measure differences in visual field scores pre- and postenvironmental intervention. There were limitations to each tool: the lack of psychometric properties for the TAWC and the WC, and the lack of ability to measure changes in design features within visual fields with SS.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Multiple tools to assess environments for wayfinding design may be needed in studies that test environmental interventions. Future research is needed to provide psychometric testing for the tools.</p>","PeriodicalId":47306,"journal":{"name":"Herd-Health Environments Research & Design Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Herd-Health Environments Research & Design Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/19375867231180905","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/6/27 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: The purpose of this article is to compare three different methods to assess the complexity of a long-term care (LTC) environment for wayfinding before and after an environmental design intervention. The methods include space syntax (SS), the Wayfinding Checklist (WC), and the Tool to Assess Wayfinding Complexity (TAWC).

Background: Wayfinding is important to maintain older adults' independent functioning. The design of environments can impact wayfinding ability by providing support; this can be via building structure or by environmental design features such as signage and landmarks. Few methods or tools have been scientifically validated to assess environments for wayfinding complexity. In order to compare environments in terms of complexity and to measure the impact of interventions, valid and reliable tools are necessary.

Methods: This article discusses the results of the use of three wayfinding design assessment tools using three routes in one LTC environment. The results of the three tools are discussed.

Results: SS analysis could quantitatively measure the complexity of routes using integration values, which indicates connectedness. The TAWC and the WC were able to measure differences in visual field scores pre- and postenvironmental intervention. There were limitations to each tool: the lack of psychometric properties for the TAWC and the WC, and the lack of ability to measure changes in design features within visual fields with SS.

Conclusions: Multiple tools to assess environments for wayfinding design may be needed in studies that test environmental interventions. Future research is needed to provide psychometric testing for the tools.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
寻路设计的长期护理环境评估。
目的:本文的目的是比较在环境设计干预前后评估长期护理(LTC)环境寻路复杂性的三种不同方法。这些方法包括空间句法(SS)、寻路检查表(WC)和评估寻路复杂性的工具(TAWC)。背景:寻路对保持老年人的独立功能很重要。环境的设计可以通过提供支持来影响寻路能力;这可以通过建筑结构或通过诸如标志和地标的环境设计特征来实现。很少有方法或工具经过科学验证,可以评估寻路复杂性的环境。为了从复杂性的角度比较环境并衡量干预措施的影响,有效和可靠的工具是必要的。方法:本文讨论了在一个LTC环境中使用三条路线的三种寻路设计评估工具的结果。讨论了三种工具的结果。结果:SS分析可以利用积分值定量测量路线的复杂性,这表明了连通性。TAWC和WC能够测量环境干预前后视野得分的差异。每种工具都有局限性:TAWC和WC缺乏心理测量特性,以及缺乏用SS测量视野内设计特征变化的能力。结论:在测试环境干预的研究中,可能需要多种工具来评估寻路设计的环境。未来的研究需要为这些工具提供心理测量测试。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Herd-Health Environments Research & Design Journal
Herd-Health Environments Research & Design Journal PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
22.70%
发文量
82
期刊最新文献
Design of a Cancer Infusion Center: Results from a Pre- and Post-Occupancy Evaluation. Perspectives of Families and Healthcare Staff on the Design of Inpatient Hospital Rooms in Saudi Arabia. Blue Space: Extracting the Sensory Characteristics of Waterscapes as a Potential Tool for Anxiety Mitigation Emergency Department Environmental Responses to COVID-19 Pandemic: A Qualitative Study Harmony in Nature: Exploring the Multisensory Impact of Classical Gardens on Individuals' Well-Being.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1