SCP Independent Living Performance Measurement Survey 1

SCP Independent Living 

Performance Measurement Survey: 

Process, Rationale, Results, and 

Recommendations 

SEPTEMBER 2014
SCP Independent Living Performance Measurement Survey i

SCP Independent Living Performance Measurement 

Survey: Process, Rationale, Results, and 

Recommendations

September 2014 

Authors 

This study was conducted by researchers from JBS International in Burlingame, CA, pursuant to a contact # 

CNSHQ12F0063 between the Corporation for National and Community Service, a federal agency of the United 

States Government, and JBS International: 

Donald Pratt, Ph.D. Research Associate 

Peter Lovegrove, Ph.D., Research Associate 

Claudia Birmingham, MA, Research Associate 

Leith Lombas, Ph.D., Research Associate 

Nicole Vicinanza, Ph.D., Senior Associate 

Annie Georges, Ph.D., Research Associate 

Susan Gabbard, Ph.D., Vice President 

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank all the project directors, staffs and volunteers who made this study possible. 

Citation

Pratt, D., Lovegrove, P., Birmingham, C., Lombas, L., Vicinanza, N., Georges, A, & Gabbard, S, (2014). SCP 

Independent Living Performance Measurement Survey: Process, Rationale, Results, and Recommendations. 

North Bethesda, MD: JBS International, Inc. 

This report is in the public domain. Authorization to reproduce it in whole or in part is granted. Upon request, this 
SCP Independent Living Performance Measurement Survey ii

material will be made available in alternative formats for people with disabilities. 

Table of Contents 

Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................................... i

Methods ................................................................................................................................................................. i

Findings and Conclusions ..................................................................................................................................... ii

Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................... 1

Evolution of Performance Measurement for the Senior Corps Program, 1996 to 2014 ....................................... 2

Methods...................................................................................................................................................................... 3

Survey Participants and Response Rates ............................................................................................................... 4

Survey Languages ..................................................................................................................................................... 6

Training and Technical Assistance (T/TA) Availability and Use ............................................................................ 6

National Conference Events ................................................................................................................................. 8

Senior Corps Evaluation Website ............................................................................................................................ 8

T/TA Materials ............................................................................................................................................................ 9

Web-based Group Training .....................................................................................................................................10

Senior Corps Survey Help Desk .............................................................................................................................10

Grantees’ Experience and Feedback on the Survey Process ..............................................................................13

Use of Technical Assistance ..................................................................................................................................16

Help Desk ...........................................................................................................................................................17

Group Training ....................................................................................................................................................17

Survey Implementation Challenges .......................................................................................................................18

Possible Departures from Prescribed Survey Procedures ...................................................................................18

Reasons Given for High and Low Response Rates ............................................................................................19

Additional Uses of Survey Results ......................................................................................................................19

Data Analysis ...........................................................................................................................................................19

Survey Results.........................................................................................................................................................21

Client Survey Results ..........................................................................................................................................21

Caregiver Survey Results ...................................................................................................................................27

Overview of Reliability and Validity Analysis ........................................................................................................33

Reliability Analysis- Client Survey .........................................................................................................................34

Exploratory and Inter-item Reliability Results ......................................................................................................34

Review of Descriptive Statistics. .........................................................................................................................34
SCP Independent Living Performance Measurement Survey iii

Survey Completeness. ........................................................................................................................................34

Response Patterns across Survey Items ............................................................................................................37

Inter-Item Correlations and Consistency Analysis ...............................................................................................38

Validity Study- Client Survey ..................................................................................................................................38

Factor Analysis ...................................................................................................................................................39

Reliability Analysis- Caregiver Survey ...................................................................................................................42

Response Patterns Across Survey Items ............................................................................................................42

Inter-Item Correlations and Consistency Analysis ...............................................................................................43

Validity Study- Caregiver Survey ...........................................................................................................................44

Factor Analysis ...................................................................................................................................................44

Correlation of Grantee Characteristics with Client and Caregiver Constructs ......................................................47

Limitations ...............................................................................................................................................................48

Conclusions and Recommendations .....................................................................................................................48

Recommendations for Future Surveys ..................................................................................................................50

Survey Implementation ...........................................................................................................................................50

Communication ...................................................................................................................................................51

Timing of Data Collection ....................................................................................................................................52

Using Field and Technical Working Groups ........................................................................................................53

Training and Technical Assistance Materials ......................................................................................................54

Survey Administration .........................................................................................................................................54

Recommendations for the Survey Instrument ......................................................................................................56

Appendix A ..............................................................................................................................................................59

Client Survey: Correlations, Items 2 through 13 ..................................................................................................59

Caregiver Survey: Correlations, Items 2 through 12 ............................................................................................60

Non-Response Analysis, Client Survey: Comparing Mean Response Base on Grantee Response Rate............61

Non-Response Analysis, Caregiver Survey: Comparing Mean Response Base on Grantee Response Rate .....63

Non-Response Analysis: Comparing Client and Caregiver Mean Response Base on When Grantees 

Submitted their Data ...........................................................................................................................................65

Appendix B ..............................................................................................................................................................68

SCP Independent Living Performance Measurement Survey, Frequency of Survey Items from Clients .............69
SCP Independent Living Performance Measurement Survey iv

List of Figures 

Figure 1: Number of Hours Spent with Senior Companion ..................................................................................22

Figure 2: Response Percentages – Client Survey-Social Loneliness and Social Support ................................23

Figure 3: Response Percentages – Client Survey – Social Loneliness and Social Support ..............................23

Figure 4: Response Percentages – Client Survey Self Efficacy ...........................................................................24

Figure 5: Response Percentages – Client Survey Satisfaction ............................................................................25

Figure 6: Frequency of Number of Hours Caregivers Received Respite Services from a Senior 

Companion in a Typical Week ................................................................................................................................27

Figure 7: Response Percentages – Caregiver Survey – Social Support and Social Loneliness .......................28

Figure 8: Response Percentages – Caregiver Survey – Social Support and Social Loneliness .......................29

Figure 9: Response Percentages - Caregiver Survey Self Efficacy .....................................................................30

Figure 10: Response Percentages – Caregiver Satisfaction ................................................................................30

Figure 11: Proportion of Clients with Particular Response Patterns ...................................................................37

Figure 12: Results from First-Stage Exploratory Factor Analysis, Clients Survey .............................................39

Figure 13: Proportion of Caregivers with Particular Average Response Patterns .............................................43

Figure 14: Results from First-Stage Exploratory Factor Analysis, Caregivers Respite Survey ........................45
SCP Independent Living Performance Measurement Survey v

List of Tables 

Table 1: Web-based Group Trainings for SCP Grantees ......................................................................................10

Table 2: Characteristics of SCP Grantees Contacting the Senior Corps Help Desk .........................................12

Table 3: Topic of Requests for Technical Assistance ..........................................................................................13

Table 4: Survey Items ..............................................................................................................................................21

Table 5: Number of hours spent with a volunteer in a typical week ....................................................................22

Table 6: Clients survey items non-response, mean and median, and frequencies ............................................26

Table 7: Distribution of the Number of hours Caregivers Received Respite Services in a typical week ..........28

Table 8: Caregiver survey items non-response, mean and median, and frequencies .......................................32

Table 9: Completeness of the SCP Independent Living Clients Survey ..............................................................35

Table 10: Cronbach’s Alpha if Item Deleted ..........................................................................................................38

Table 11: Factor loadings First Factor Analysis, All Items ...................................................................................40

Table 12: Latent Construct Variables, Factor Loadings for Second Adjusted Factor Analysis, Reduced 

Number of Items ......................................................................................................................................................40

Table 13: Completeness of the SCP Independent Living Caregivers Respite Survey .......................................42

Table 14: Alpha if Item Deleted ...............................................................................................................................44

Table 15: Factor Loadings First Factor Analysis, All Nine Items .........................................................................45

Table 16: Latent Construct Variables, Factor loadings for Second Adjusted Factor Analysis, Reduced 

Number of Items ......................................................................................................................................................46

Table 17: Clients and Caregivers Served ...............................................................................................................47

Table 18: Correlations of Social Loneliness and Social Support, Self-Efficacy Constructs with Number of 

Clients and Caregivers Served ...............................................................................................................................47
SCP Independent Living Performance Measurement Survey i

Executive Summary 

The Senior Companion Program (SCP) Independent Living Study is an important initiative undertaken by the 

Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS) to assess the effectiveness of Senior Corps Programs 

and to build grantee capacity to contribute to the evidence base for informed decision-making and allocation of 

resources. CNCS’s goal is to increase the impact of national service in communities served by CNCS-supported 

programs. 

The data gathered through this study will assist CNCS to begin assessing the performance of SCP at the national 

level using output and outcome measures. The specific outputs of interest under Goal 1 are the amount of SCP -

supported independent living and respite services received, and the percent of homebound or older adults and 

individuals with disabilities and their caregivers that received CNCS-supported services who report having 

increased social ties and perceived social support. 

This report presents the results and findings from the client and caregiver surveys to assess clients’ and 

caregivers’ experiences and perceptions of program benefits. The report also discusses grantees’ experiences in 

administering the survey, including their use of technical assistance. The data presented include the survey 

response rate and an analysis using several statistical techniques to assess the reliability and validity of the 

survey data. 

Methods 

The SCP Independent Living Study surveyed established SCP clients and caregivers of approximately 50 SCP 

grantees. These SCP grantees represent the first wave of grantees to begin using the mandatory data collection 

instruments for independent living performance measures starting in 2013. Sponsors and grantees received 

training and technical assistance strategies (T/TA) to communicate effectively with volunteers, clients, and other 

local stakeholders to promote cooperation with data collection efforts. 

SCP grantees that provided independent living services administered the Senior Companion Program 

Independent Living Performance Measurement Survey to clients who had received a minimum of one year of 

service. Grantees that provided respite services administered the Senior Companion Program Respite 

Performance Measurement Survey to caregivers who had received at least one year of service. 

JBS staff provided technical assistance through an online web-conference (“webinar”) that was archived and 

made available for grantees. Instructions requested that the SCP grantees administer the survey directly to all 

established Senior Companion clients and caregivers that received respite services. However, clients’ and 
SCP Independent Living Performance Measurement Survey ii

caregivers’ participation was voluntary and did not affect their involvement with the program. Technical 

assistance included step-by-step instructions for collecting the survey in person, mail and by telephone. 

Supporting materials were included, such as cover letters for surveys mailed to the clients and caregivers and a 

fact sheet for project directors that covered frequently asked questions. Participants received instruction to 

exclude any personally identifying information when returning the survey. Project directors then submitted their 

electronic data files to CNCS. Data collection took place during the summer and early fall of 2013 via paper, 

online, phone, and in-person surveys. Grantees delivered the final survey on December 31, 2013. 

Findings and Conclusions 

 The survey results showed that the majority of independent living clients spent three to four hours per week 

with their Senior Companion. A similar profile emerged from the caregiver survey, wherein the majority of 

caregivers reported receiving respite services for three to four hours per week. 

 Clients and caregivers expressed satisfaction with the Senior Companion program, and program 

participants reported high rates of perceived social support and self-efficacy. 

 The survey data appeared to be reliable and valid. The Likert scale items had some possible ceiling effects, 

where many responses to a given question were ‘strongly agree’, and a portion of both clients and 

caretakers answered ‘strongly agree’ to every question. 

 For the client survey, one grouping consisted of items related to ‘Social Loneliness and Support and the 

other group was ‘Perceived Self-efficacy’. For the caregiver survey, the factors were ‘Social Support’ and 

‘Social Loneliness’. Though the items selected for the different factors were slightly different, the factors 

emerging from the client and caregiver survey responses were relatively comparable. 

The report concludes with suggestions for improving the SCP Independent Living Performance Measurement 

Survey. All of the suggestions seek to strengthen the survey and many seek to expand it. The wealth of 

suggestions received from stakeholders including grantees, volunteers, clients, caregivers and researchers 

demonstrate the interest and commitment of the SCP community for valid, reliable and useful information on SCP 

services to clients and caregivers.
SCP Independent Living Performance Measurement Survey 1

SCP Independent Living Performance Measurement 

Survey: Process, Rationale, Results, and 

Recommendations 

Introduction 

The Senior Companion Program (SCP) Independent Living Study is an important initiative undertaken by the 

Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS) to assess the effectiveness of Senior Corps Programs 

and to build grantee capacity to contribute to the evidence base for informed decision-making and allocation of 

resources. This study supports CNCS’s commitment to building a strong evidence base for national service 

programs and participants as emphasized throughout its Strategic Plan 2011-2015. Goal 1 of this plan calls for 

CNCS to increase the impact of national service in communities served by CNCS-supported programs. The data 

gathered through this study will assist CNCS to begin assessing the performance of SCP at the national level 

using output and outcome measures related to Goal 1. The specific outputs of interest under Goal 1 are the 

amount of SCP-supported independent living and respite services received, and the percent of homebound or 

older adults and individuals with disabilities and their caregivers that received CNCS-supported services who 

report having increased social ties and perceived social support. 

This report presents results from the SCP Independent Living Performance Measurement Survey, the first 

standardized questionnaire to measure impacts related to Goal 1. The report provides details of the survey 

administration and discusses survey quality, reliability, and validity. The data are from a cross-sectional survey 

that asked independent living clients and caregivers to complete a self-assessment of the impact of the SCP 

services on their lives. The CNCS-funded survey, a census of the 2013 SCP grantees cohort, was administered 

to all established clients and caregivers who received independent living and respite services from SCP grantees 

that were renewing their grants in 2013. Established clients are defined as those having CNCS-supported 

services for at least one year. Clients who have received services for less than one year likely fall into one of 

three categories: 

1. Clients recently enrolled in services who had not been served for at least one year at the time of survey 

administration; 

2. Clients with a short-term need for assistance (e.g., while recuperating from surgery) who would 

complete services within one year; and 

3. Clients who did not survive for more than one year after starting services due to frailty or poor health. 
SCP Independent Living Performance Measurement Survey 2

SCP projects administered the surveys, one for clients and one for caregivers, directly with technical assistance 

and training from JBS International, Inc. (JBS). 

This report presents the results and findings from the client and caregiver surveys to assess clients’ and 

caregivers’ experiences and perceptions of program benefits. The report also discusses grantees’ experiences in 

administering the survey, including their use of technical assistance. The data presented include the survey 

response rate and an analysis using several statistical techniques to assess the reliability and validity of the 

survey data. The sections of this report are as follows: First, the report briefly describes the evolution of 

performance measurement for the Senior Companion program. Then, the report details the study methods. Next, 

the report details the training and technical assistance components that oriented service recipients and 

encouraged their participation in the survey. This portion of the report also details the types of technical 

assistance the grantees used and includes data on participation in technical assistance activities and requests for 

additional technical assistance from grantees. Next, the report presents findings from interviews conducted with 

project directors from nine grantees on the process of implementing the surveys and the quality of technical 

assistance. Finally, the report discusses the results of the survey and the reliability and validity analysis, followed 

by conclusions and recommendations. 

Evolution of Performance Measurement for the Senior 

Corps Program, 1996 to 2014 

For almost two decades, CNCS has been committed to building an evidence-based infrastructure to inform 

decision-making and the allocation of resources. During the period from 1996 to 2003, Senior Corps project 

directors incorporated the principles of Programming for Impact (PFI) into their project planning, implementation, 

and reporting. Using PFI, project directors created project work plans identifying community needs to address, 

the service activity, the anticipated inputs, the anticipated accomplishments (outputs), and the anticipated impact 

(outcomes) of services to provide. The primary purpose of this process was to develop, track, report, and improve 

services. 

Beginning in 2003, CNCS introduced the “Performance Measurement Initiative (PMI)” for all programs, which 

sought to build on the strengths and experience of the PFI approach while promoting greater clarity in the 

measurement details of work plans and placing increased emphasis on outcomes. Grantees were required to 

identify an output, intermediate outcome, and end outcome for at least three work plans to highlight results for 

key service activities. For each of these “performance measurement work plans,” grantees were required to 

identify an indicator, instrument or data source, and a target for each output and outcome. An extensive library of 

work plans modeled best practices for each component of a performance measurement work plan with special 
SCP Independent Living Performance Measurement Survey 3

emphasis on the measurement components. CNCS provided grantees with new sample instruments to facilitate 

data collection for outcomes. 

The Serve America Act, passed in 2009, made substantial changes to CNCS’s mission, including giving CNCS 

new areas of emphasis, such as working with veterans, and directing it to focus more on performance evaluation 

and cost-effectiveness. The Serve America Act also mandated that the Government Accounting Office (GAO) 

perform a series of reviews relating to program effectiveness with respect to CNCS’s performance measures. In 

2010, the GAO identified a need for CNCS to improve the alignment of performance measures with the agency’s 

strategic plan to demonstrate the results of its work. In the CNCS Strategic Plan for 2011-2015, CNCS introduced 

a set of national performance measures for all programs to follow in guiding the performance measurement 

priorities of grantees. 

While there is continuity in Senior Corps work plans from the Performance Measurement Initiative, all Senior 

Corps projects seeking to renew their grant in fiscal year 2013 had to include work plans addressing specific 

agency-wide priority measures in their grant application. For the Senior Companion Program, this included the 

Healthy Futures performance measures for Aging in Place (H8 and H9 outcomes). SCP grantees were also 

required to use a standard survey to measure and report the H9 outcome (number of homebound or older adults 

and individuals with disabilities who reported having increased social ties/perceived social support). 

Methods 

SCP grantees that provided independent living services administered the Senior Companion Program 

Independent Living Performance Measurement Survey to clients who had received a minimum of one year of 

service. Grantees that provided respite services administered the Senior Companion Program Respite 

Performance Measurement Survey to caregivers who had received at least one year of service. Grantees aimed 

to meet or exceed an 85 percent response rate. Survey tasks included identifying eligible clients and caregivers, 

training data collectors to follow protocol (if applicable), administering the surveys, recording responses to the 

surveys, and submitting the file to CNCS. Grantees would also later report these performance measurement 

results in their progress reports. 

Grantees learned of the survey requirements through a direct email from CNCS, with further information provided 

during conference calls, and at national in-person meetings. JBS staff provided technical assistance through an 

online web-conference (“webinar”) that was archived and made available for grantees. Instructions requested that 

the SCP grantees administer the survey directly to all established Senior Companion clients and caregivers who 

received respite services. However, clients’ and caregivers’ participation was voluntary and did not affect their 
SCP Independent Living Performance Measurement Survey 4

involvement with the program. 

Technical assistance included step-by-step instructions for collecting the survey in person, by mail and by 

telephone. Supporting materials were included, such as cover letters for surveys mailed to the clients and 

caregivers and a fact sheet for project directors that covered frequently asked questions. Participants received 

instruction to exclude any personally identifying information when returning the survey. Project directors then 

submitted their electronic data files to CNCS. Data collection took place during the summer and early fall of 2013 

via paper, online, phone, and in-person surveys. Grantees delivered the final survey on December 31, 2013. 

The research protocol received an IRB exemption by the JBS International IRB because, although seniors are in 

general a vulnerable population, voluntary participation in a survey poses no risk to the individuals. The Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) also cleared the data collection prior to its implementation. Federal 

administrative data collection from more than nine individuals is regulated by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 

1980 (Pub. L. No. 96-511, 94 Stat. 2812, codified at 44 U.S.C. § 3501-3521), a United States federal law that 

manages the paperwork burden imposed on federal grantees, among others. CNCS submitted an initial draft of 

the proposed surveys in the Federal Register on December 8, 2011 and cleared the surveys on January 23, 2013 

(Office of Management and Budget control # 3045-0146). 

Survey Participants and Response Rates 

The census consisted of the cohort of SCP grantees that were renewing their grants in 2013. There were 61 SCP 

active grants in this cohort when data collection began in July 2013. Ten grantees received exemptions from the 

study. One exempted grantee exclusively served clients residing in institutional settings, such as nursing homes. 

Two other grantees had exemptions because they had completed surveys of their independent living clients and 

caregivers shortly before learning that CNCS was about to conduct similar surveys of these groups. An additional 

seven grantees received exemptions because they had relinquished their SCP grants. Fifty-one of the grantees 

in the class of 2013 were eligible to participate in the study. JBS received 39 unique spreadsheets, each 

representing a grantee, yielding a 78 percent response rate among grantees. One of these grantees 

administered surveys to both established and non-established clients and caregivers, and because it was not 

possible to determine which responses were from “established” respondents, all analyses excluded this grantee 

from the individual-level response rate calculations. 

The 38 grantees reported providing services to 4,292 established clients. Among participating grantees, the 

average number of clients was 80, but there was a wide range; the minimum and maximum number of clients 

responding to the survey was 12 and 815, respectively. Eight of the 38 grantees had more than 100 clients that 
SCP Independent Living Performance Measurement Survey 5

participated in the survey. Among the eligible clients, 3,048 returned their surveys and provided a response to 

one or more survey questions, yielding a client-level response rate of 71 percent. Response rates varied greatly 

by grantee, the range was from 21 percent to 100 percent. 

The 31 grantees that also administered the caregiver survey reported providing services to 878 established 

caregivers. The participating grantees had an average of 21 caregivers, but there was a wide range; the 

minimum and maximum number of caregivers responding to the survey was two and 148, respectively. Five of 

the 31 grantees had more than 30 caregivers who participated in the survey. A total of 656 caregivers returned 

their surveys and provided a response to one or more survey questions, yielding a caregiver-level response rate 

of 75 percent. The range of response rates by grantee for the caregiver survey was 14 percent to 100 percent.

Given the lower than 80 percent response rate among clients and caregivers, it is important to determine if the 

non-response was random or if there may have been bias due to systematic differences in characteristics among 

the client and caregiver respondents and non-respondents. We assessed possible non-response bias using two 

different analyses. The first analysis compared respondents from grantees that achieved a response rate of 80 

percent or higher to respondents from grantees whose response rates were below 80 percent. The second 

analysis compared grantees who submitted their surveys prior to the initial deadline of September 30th to 

grantees who submitted their surveys after this initial deadline. 

In the first analysis that compared clients of grantees that achieved at least an 80 percent rate to clients at 

grantees whose response rate was below 80 percent, there appeared to be minimal differences in how clients 

responded to survey items. The one difference that emerged was in the number of hours of caregiver respite 

services received. Caregivers at grantees with response rates of at least 80 percent reported significantly higher 

numbers of hours of caregiver respite services compared to caregivers at grantees whose response rates were 

below 80 percent. The average hours of respite services was 13 compared to 8.5 hours, respectively. 

A few significant differences emerged when we compared grantees that submitted their surveys before, versus 

after, the initial September 30, 2013 deadline. The results suggest more favorable responses among clients and 

caregivers at grantees that submitted their survey responses prior to September 30th. In particular, clients served 

by grantees that were early submitters had, on average, more favorable responses to the items: “I feel less 

lonely,” “I can remain living in my own home,” “Overall, I am satisfied with my Senior Companion volunteer,” and 

“Overall, the Senior Companion Program has met my expectations.” Caregivers who were supported by grantees 

that were early submitters, had more favorable responses to the items: “I am able to do more of the things I want 

to do,” “I am able to find time to run errands,” “I am able find time to attend to my personal and health care 
SCP Independent Living Performance Measurement Survey 6

needs,” and “I am more satisfied with my life.” Appendix A shows the full results of these analyses 1. 

Survey Languages 

The surveys were available in 14 different languages. Grantees provided data on the number of clients and 

caregivers that completed the survey in languages other than English. Among the 31 grantees that provided this 

information, the majority (77%) of clients completed the survey in English, the remaining five percent completed 

the survey in Spanish; and the remaining 18 percent in another language. Among the 24 grantees that provided 

this information for the caregiver survey, 94 percent of the respondents completed the survey in English, less 

than one percent took the survey in Spanish, and the remaining six percent took the survey in another language. 

Training and Technical Assistance (T/TA) Availability 

and Use 

A key component of the study was to provide grantees training and technical assistance (T/TA) in survey 

administration. We identified a set of learning outcomes for both grantees and data collectors that provided the 

foundation for developing T/TA resources. The goal was for grantees that used T/TA resources to be able to: 

 Explain the purpose of the study to project staff, volunteers, stations, and other local stakeholders. 

 Understand data collection options, roles, and responsibilities. 

 Obtain cooperation from local stakeholders. 

 Identify established clients and caregivers (respondents). 

 Determine how to assist respondents who may not be able to complete a survey on their own. 

 Train data collectors. 

 Understand the dos and don’ts of data collection, and communicate them to data collectors.

 Follow procedures to minimize data contamination. 

 

1

 Independent samples t-tests were used for this analysis, where equal variances between groups was not assumed. 
SCP Independent Living Performance Measurement Survey 7

 Follow procedures to protect the privacy of clients and caregivers.

 Track respondents and follow-up with non-responders.

 Understand how to use the Client-Caregiver Surveys Spreadsheet to aggregate the data.

 Submit data to CNCS.

Some project directors used data collectors to assist in distributing surveys to clients and caregivers. Those data 

collectors could include project staff, Senior Companions, advisory council members, or other appropriate 

individuals. We provided project directors with sample materials to aid them in training the data collectors. The 

purpose of the training materials was to enable data collectors to:

 Explain the purpose of the study to clients and caregivers.

 Understand data collection roles and responsibilities.

 Obtain client/caregiver consent.

 Administer instruments to clients and caregivers with language or disability issues.

 Understand the dos and don’ts of data collection.

 Follow procedures to minimize data contamination.

 Follow procedures to protect the privacy of clients and caregivers.

 Follow-up with non-responders.

We sought input from CNCS and a Field Working Group (FWG) comprised of CNCS field staff and Senior Corps 

grantees. CNCS provided input on the preferred timing for rollout of T/TA materials, and on the accuracy of 

content, appropriateness of messaging, and ability of T/TA materials to support achievement of the study 

objectives. The FWG provided input on material design, utility, and user-friendliness of T/TA materials.

JBS provided T/TA to grantees in the following formats and timing:

 On-site group training sessions at the April 2013 National FGP and SCP Directors Training Conference 

in Kansas City, Missouri;
SCP Independent Living Performance Measurement Survey 8

 Two web-based group trainings in July and August 2013; 

 The Senior Corps Survey Help Desk, which grantees could call or email for assistance; 

 The Senior Corps Evaluation website, located on the National Service Knowledge Network 

(http://www.nationalserviceresources.gov), housed all T/TA resources; and 

 Materials made available on the website. 

National Conference Events 

We provided T/TA at two national conferences. The T/TA roll-out began at an on-site event at the April 2013 

National FGP and SCP Directors Training Conference in Kansas City. Approximately 60 participants attended a 

session that introduced participants to the surveys and explained the importance of the data collection effort for 

demonstrating the value of national service and improving Senior Corps programs. Session participants learned 

about the role of Senior Companion project staff, how to prepare staff and data collectors to support the data 

collection process, and the availability of T/TA resources. 

Of the 60 participants at the session, 39 completed a feedback survey. Seventy-nine percent of the participants 

(31 of 39 responding) agreed or strongly agreed, “I will be able to apply the strategies and skills presented.”

Some of the comments indicated that participants would have liked more time for the session, clearer timelines, 

and more information in writing. However, participants also appreciated the opportunity to provide feedback on 

the surveys at the session. 

In August 2013, once the study was underway, CNCS hosted a “Virtual Conference” for all Senior Corps project 

directors that covered a variety of topics. SCP project directors who attended the Senior Corps Virtual 

Conference had an additional opportunity to access technical assistance via a message board where they could 

post queries about the survey instruments and data collection process. There were two queries, and we provided 

responses and feedback to both. 

Senior Corps Evaluation Website 

The Senior Corps Evaluation website, located on the National Service Knowledge Network, 

http://www.nationalservice.gov/resources/sc-evaluations, served as the “one-stop shop” for grantees to access all 

information and instructional materials about the Senior Companion Program Independent Living Performance 

Measurement Study. Materials for the study were posted in late June 2013, about one week prior to the July 8th

launch date for the data collection. JBS T/TA staff worked with CNCS’s website management team to keep the 
SCP Independent Living Performance Measurement Survey 9

page current, adding materials and posting webinar recordings as they became available. 

The website included: 

 General information about the SCP Independent Living Performance Measurement Survey; 

 Senior Corps Help Desk Information; 

 Schedule for web-based training and information on how to join these sessions or access the 

recordings; 

 Both survey instruments in 14 languages; and 

 Training and technical resources that included a comprehensive information packet on how to conduct 

the survey and complete the Client-Caregiver Surveys Spreadsheet. 

T/TA Materials 

In order to improve data quality, the JBS T/TA team developed comprehensive materials to inform and 

encourage cooperation and to standardize the data collection process. The T/TA resources aimed to support a 

diverse Senior Corps grantee audience with varied learning styles and levels of experience with performance 

measurement. 

All support materials resided on the Senior Corps Evaluation website, providing centralized support for grantees. 

Instructional materials for grantees included: 

 Goals of the study; 

 Frequently asked questions (FAQs) ; 

 Detailed instructions for administering the survey in person, by mail, over the telephone, or 

electronically; 

 Adaptable sessions for training data collectors, including presentation slides and facilitator notes, 

exercises, and handouts; 

 A fact sheet for introducing the survey to client and caregiver respondents and family members; 
SCP Independent Living Performance Measurement Survey 10

 Sample forms including a data collection plan and respondent tracking sheet; 

 Suggested “talking points” to explain the survey to stakeholders;

 Suggestions for assisting respondents with special needs; and 

 Client-Caregiver Surveys Spreadsheet and instructions. 

Web-based Group Training 

Two 60-minute web-based group trainings (webinars) were conducted for participating SCP. Grantees were told 

of the webinars through emails from state offices, and an announcement was posted on the Senior Corps 

Evaluation website. The first webinar, an orientation to the study and surveys, occurred shortly after the study 

launched on July 8, 2013. The second webinar, on how to use the Client-Caregiver Surveys Spreadsheet, was 

offered twice. Almost one-third of grantees attended one of the webinars. Four grantees attended the first 

webinar, and 12 SCP grantees attended the second webinar. Grantee attendance may have been higher for the 

second webinar because information gathered from Help Desk inquiries indicated that the spreadsheet was a 

new requirement, and grantees had been awaiting its release.

Table 1: Web-based Group Trainings for SCP Grantees 

Topic Dates Participants

Senior Companion Program Performance Measure Surveys (Orientation) July 11 3

Senior Companion Program Performance Measure Surveys (Orientation) July 16 1

Senior Companion Program Performance Measure Surveys (Orientation) July 17 0

Using the Spreadsheet (Data Aggregation) August 20 12

Using the Spreadsheet (Data Aggregation) August 21 4

A recording of the webinars with presentation slides and facilitator notes were posted on the Senior Corps 

Evaluation website for project directors who missed the sessions or wanted to refer back to the material. There 

was no information collected on the use of the recorded webinar materials. Some feedback on their use is 

included in the next section of this report, which discusses grantees’ use of the Survey Help Desk. 

Senior Corps Survey Help Desk 

Senior Corps Survey Help Desk offered free, personalized assistance to grantees to support implementation of 

the surveys. Grantees contacted the Senior Corps Help Desk for assistance using a dedicated toll-free telephone 

number, and email address. CNCS headquarters notified SCP project directors of the Help Desk via e-mail. The 

Senior Corps Evaluation website also prominently listed Help Desk phone and email contact information along 
SCP Independent Living Performance Measurement Survey 11

with possible topic areas where grantees might have questions including:

 Understanding and/or using survey materials; 

 Determining best instrument format (online, telephone interview, etc.) or languages; 

 Training data collectors; 

 Handling data and tracking respondents; and

 Reporting results to CNCS and understanding how to use the information to strengthen local programs. 

Help Desk inquiries typically involved assisting grantees to access data aggregation resources and responding to 

questions about the survey requirements. (See section C: Grantee Use of Training and Technical Assistance for 

more information on use of the Help Desk). 

Almost half of participating grantees (n=23) requested technical assistance via telephone or email at least once. 

In addition, one RSVP project and one CNCS State Office also called the Help Desk with questions about the 

performance measurement surveys. 

Table 2 compares characteristics of grantees that requested technical assistance, grantees who were required to 

implement the surveys this year (the 2013 cohort), and all SCP grantees. 

As a group, grantees that requested T/TA did not differ from other SCP grantees in terms of population size in the 

areas they served. The majority (82 percent) of grantees that requested T/TA were located in urban metro areas, 

as were 81 percent of 2013 cohort and 75 percent of all current SCP grantees. However, the size of the grantees’ 

projects, as determined by reported Volunteer Service Years (VSY)2, was larger for grantees that requested T/TA 

compared to the project size for the 2013 cohort and all SCP grantees as a whole. Grantees that requested T/TA 

had an average of 60 VSYs compared to an average of 56 VSYs for the 2013 cohort and 50 VSYs for all current 

SCP grantees.

 

2 One “Volunteer Service Year” (VSY) equals 1,044 hours (e.g., one volunteer serving about 20 hours per week over 

a year). 
SCP Independent Living Performance Measurement Survey 12

Table 2: Characteristics of SCP Grantees Contacting the Senior Corps Help Desk (N=23) 

Characteristics SCP Grantees That 

Requested T/TA

SCP Grantees in the 

2013 Cohort Eligible 

to Participate

All SCP Grantees

Number of Grantees SCP Grantees 23

(45% of 2013 grantees 

eligible to participate)

51

(23% of current SCP 

grantees)

222

Geographic Context* Urban, Metro318 34 159

Geographic Context* Urban, Non-metro 3 7 50

Geographic Context* Rural41 1 3

Geographic Context* Total 22 42 212

Project Size Volunteer Service Years 21 projects

Mean=60

Median=65

42 projects

Mean=56

Median=61

199 projects

Mean=50

Median=51

*Beale code and Volunteer Service Years were not available for all projects. 

JBS documented individual grantee T/TA service requests (calls and emails to the Help Desk) to track and 

address common challenges. There were 31 T/TA requests from 23 SCP grantees, one RSVP grantee, and one 

state office. 

Most of the T/TA requests involved questions about accessing documents and clarification of the requirements. 

Table 3 shows that one-third of the requests (n=8) were questions about where to find the Client-Caregiver 

Surveys Spreadsheet, how to complete it, or where to submit it. Three grantees called the Help Desk, or were 

contacted by JBS, after it was discovered the spreadsheet was submitted to the wrong address. Seven T/TA 

requests were questions about the survey requirements, including grantees who were unclear about whether 

previously released performance measurement surveys were the correct versions, and questions about who was 

required to complete a survey. 

Five grantees called the Help Desk requesting assistance to find the survey forms or a webinar recording. Two 

grantees requested modifications to the existing materials, including translations of the sample cover letter and 

the addition of extra worksheets to the spreadsheet. (JBS was able to accommodate the second request.) 

 

2 One “Volunteer Service Year” (VSY) equals 1,044 hours (e.g., one volunteer serving about 20 hours per week over a year).

3

“Urban” populations are those corresponding to Beale codes 1-7. “Urban, Metro” are counties in metropolitan areas (Beale Codes 1-3). 

“Urban, Non-metro” include urban populations of 2,500 or more adjacent or not adjacent to a metropolitan area (Beale Codes 4-7). The 2010 

Census Urban and Rural Classification and Urban Area Criteria: Urbanized Areas of 50,000 or more people and Urban Clusters of at least 

2,500 and less than 50,000 people. 

4

“Rural” populations are those corresponding to Beale Codes 8 and 9 (completely rural or less than 2,500 urban populations). According to the 

U.S. Census Bureau 2010 Census (http://www.census.gov/geo/reference/ua/urban-rural-2010.html), “Rural” encompasses all population, 

housing, and territory not included within an urban area. 
SCP Independent Living Performance Measurement Survey 13

Table 3: Topic of Requests for Technical Assistance (N=24 Requests)* 

T/TA Topic Number of 

Requests Percent

Where to find the Client-Caregiver Surveys Spreadsheet, or how to complete it or submit it 8 33

Clarification of survey requirements (who should complete the survey; do they 

can they use their own survey)

have the correct surveys; 7 29

How to access a recording of a training webinars 3 13

Spreadsheet submitted incorrectly 3 13

Where to find the surveys 2 8

Requesting modifications of existing materials (spreadsheet, cover letter) 2 8

* Topic information was available for 24 of the 31 requests. A request for T/TA could involve more than one topic. 

We worked with CNCS and ETR Associates to update FAQs or other documents based on information requests. 

For example, the two performance measurement surveys used in the study were revised from two surveys 

previously posted elsewhere on the Knowledge Network (survey items were ordered differently). This initially 

caused confusion, so a notice was added to the FAQs and “official form” was added to the heading of the correct 

surveys. 

Grantees’ Experience and Feedback on the Survey 

Process 

We gathered information on the grantees’ experience implementing the Senior Companion Program Independent 

Living Performance Measurement Survey (“client survey”), the Senior Companion Program Respite Performance 

Measurement Survey (“caregiver survey”), and use of related technical assistance (TA) resources from interviews 

conducted with eight grantees. 

We conducted telephone interviews with eight project directors between November 22 and December 11, 2013. 

The semi-structured interview format utilized a combination of open-ended and closed-ended questions with 

opportunities to probe for further information as needed. Interviews lasted from 15 to 35 minutes, with an average 

length of 23 minutes. Project directors provided information on the methods they used to collect survey data, the 

technical assistance resources they utilized, the challenges encountered in implementing the surveys, possible 

deviations from prescribed data collection procedures, reasons given for high and low response rates, and 

additional uses of survey results. The interviews with project directors provide context on the procedures used for 

administering the surveys, the implementation challenges, and how emerging challenges were addressed. The 

interviews also provided an opportunity for project directors to offer explanations about both low and high 

response rates and suggestions to boost response rates in future surveys. 
SCP Independent Living Performance Measurement Survey 14

The eight grantees were selected to vary across the following characteristics:

 Program size, as measured in VSYs;

 Geographical location;

 Population density (urban, suburban, or rural);

 Surveys conducted (client survey, caregiver survey, or both);

 Timing of survey completion (before or after original due date of September 30, 2013);

 Survey response rates (above or below 85 percent target rate for both surveys); and

 Survey languages.

The eight grantees ranged in size from 25 to 80 VSYs. They operated in states covering four CNCS regional 

clusters (Atlantic, North Central, South, and Southwest). Six grantees served clients primarily in urban and 

suburban areas; two grantees served primarily a rural clientele. One grantee served clients spread over a large 

area within the same state. Six grantees administered both surveys, while two grantees administered the client 

survey only. Three grantees finished collecting survey data before the original due date of September 30, 2013, 

while five grantees completed data collection between October 1 and December 31, 2013. Four grantees 

achieved a response rate of 85 percent or higher (three conducted both surveys, one conducted the client survey 

only). Four grantees obtained response rates below the 85 percent target, with rates that ranged from 25 to 66 

percent for the client survey, and from 42 to 56 percent for the caregiver survey. Seven grantees administered 

the surveys exclusively in English; one grantee administered the client survey in English, Russian, and Somali.5

Of the eight grantees interviewed, all had administered the client survey.6 Five of them relied on a single method 

to collect data from clients, while three grantees used a combination of methods. Methods of survey 

administration included in-person interview (five grantees), telephone interview (five grantees), and selfcompleted paper surveys (two grantees).

Six of the grantees administered the caregiver survey. Four of these grantees relied on a single method to collect 

 

5 The surveys were available to grantees in English and thirteen other languages, including Russian. The grantee 

serving Somali clients relied on local translators.

6

For the entire study, all 39 SCP grantees conducted the client survey, while 31 also conducted the caregiver 

survey. The analysis excluded one grantee because the surveys administered to established clients could not be 

identified. 
SCP Independent Living Performance Measurement Survey 15

data from caregivers, while two grantees used a combination of methods. Methods of administration included 

mail (three grantees), in-person interview (two grantees), telephone surveys (two grantees), and self-completed 

paper surveys (one grantee).

For both surveys, grantees relied on program staff, volunteer station staff, and/or Senior Companions as data 

collectors to assist with distributing surveys to clients and caregivers.7 Our interviews suggest considerable 

variation in the extent to which project directors relied on the T/TA materials to train data collectors. Some 

directors reported that they used most or all of the T/TA materials and found them to be very helpful. On the other 

hand, several directors described data collector training that made selective or sporadic use of the materials.

 One director described training Senior Companions at an in-service meeting. She explained the 

importance of the survey, walked volunteers through the survey forms, and reminded them about the 

due date for returning completed surveys. She shortened the T/TA materials for volunteers, reasoning 

that written instructions would confuse volunteers unless they were short and simple.

 A second director, who also enlisted Senior Companions as data collectors, did not distribute any written 

materials to volunteers other than the survey forms, and chose to speak “off the cuff” in an effort to 

“keep things simple.”

 A third director used volunteer station staff as data collectors. She also gave survey helpers a verbal 

synopsis of the instructions in lieu of distributing written materials.

Some directors of small projects conducted most or all of the data collection, while others sent survey helpers into 

the field with minimal training or guidance. One director informed Senior Companions that funding for the project 

“depends on us meeting our performance measures”, and emphasized the need to “report success”.

Grantees received instructions to administer the survey to clients and caregivers who had received at least one 

year of continuous service. When asked, project directors stated that they would typically include clients and 

caregivers in similar surveys after they have completed at least six months of service, although three directors 

suggested shorter time periods (3-4 months) and one director indicated she uses a one-year service period.

The directors reported that the surveys were generally well received by clients and caregivers. In most cases, 

project directors worked with Senior Companions to give prospective respondents advance notice about the 

surveys. Three directors noted that prospective respondents were quite willing to do the survey, especially once 

 

7

For self-completed paper surveys, grantees had the option to provide assistance to clients and caregivers who 

could not complete the survey on their own, as long as the assistance was not provided by the Senior Companion 

who provided services to the client or caregiver.
SCP Independent Living Performance Measurement Survey 16

they saw how short it was. One director, who relied on in-person and telephone interviews, heard from some data 

collectors that clients enjoyed having someone to talk to and were willing to answer questions. Another director 

felt that sometimes responses reflected what clients and caregivers thought the program wanted to hear. 

Grantees often employed multiple methods to administer the survey if, after initially relying on a single method, 

their response rate was too low. For example, several grantees conducted in-person or phone interviews with 

clients who did not return a mail survey, while other grantees followed up with clients who were reluctant to 

participate in a phone interview by mailing or hand-delivering the survey to them. 

Use of Technical Assistance 

This section provides information on how interviewees used various technical assistance resources, including the 

website and technical assistance (TA) materials, group training, and the Help Desk. 

The interviewed project directors reported no difficulty finding and downloading the surveys and TA materials 

from the website. Some directors noted that receiving the link to the surveys and TA materials via email was 

particularly helpful because it is not always easy to find information on the website. One interviewee stated that 

she received the survey information late and therefore had to rush to complete the data collection. 

Most SCP grantees have previous experience conducting surveys, and this is also true for these project 

directors. Several interviewees stated that they skimmed through the TA documents to learn about survey 

requirements and data collection procedures, and to identify documents (e.g., checklists, form letters, and training 

materials) that seemed particularly useful for conducting the surveys. Project directors cited the following items as 

being helpful for survey implementation: 

 Survey instruments, including languages other than English; 

 Instructions and checklists for implementing surveys via specific methods (e.g., telephone interview, 

postal mail); 

 Talking points for discussing the surveys with local stakeholders; 

 Sample form letters to inform volunteer stations, clients, and caregivers about the surveys; 

 Client-Caregiver Surveys Spreadsheet and instructions (for data aggregation and reporting); and 

 Frequently Asked Questions. 
SCP Independent Living Performance Measurement Survey 17

Some directors felt that there was too much material, making it difficult to find specific items or key pieces of 

information. Several directors commented that the materials seemed over-simplified or repetitive. However, these 

same directors noted that the materials would be very useful for new grantees and for project staff “that don’t 

have a system in place”.

Grantees were required to use and could not modify the survey instruments and the Client-Caregiver Surveys 

Spreadsheet. However, sample forms and training materials were identified as “recommended” materials that 

grantees could adapt to fit their needs.8

Almost all the project directors we interviewed reported that the data aggregation spreadsheet was easy to use and 

helpful for reporting on work plans. One director noted that data entry was time consuming, but not difficult. She 

provided each volunteer station with separate spreadsheets that she then combined into one spreadsheet for 

submission to CNCS. Another director noted that she had to perform summary calculations herself when the 

spreadsheet failed to calculate these numbers automatically. 

Help Desk 

All eight interviewees knew about the availability of the Senior Corps Survey Help Desk. Four directors recalled 

contacting the Help Desk for assistance. Calls involved relatively straightforward information requests. One 

director called to find out when the client and caregiver surveys would be available to grantees. Three directors 

called to request help in finding the data aggregation spreadsheet and related resources (e.g., the spreadsheet 

webinar recording) on the website. One director called to inquire about where to submit the completed 

spreadsheet. Another director called to report a problem with accessing the website. 

The information provided by interviewees about their use of the Help Desk suggests that they relied primarily on 

the website and TA documents to implement the surveys. The Help Desk proved to be most useful when 

grantees needed help locating self-help resources on the website. 

Group Training 

Two directors, when interviewed, recalled attending the webinar on data collection overview, and three directors 

remembered attending the webinar on how to use the spreadsheet to report survey responses. These directors 

described the webinars as being helpful, particularly with regard to tips and ideas on how to collect data. TA 

needs varied. One director suggested that the spreadsheet webinar “wasn’t as necessary” because the 

spreadsheet was “self-explanatory”, while another director stated that she would not have understood how to use 

 

8

 TA documentation also identified required procedures to ensure informed consent and to maintain 

confidentiality of respondent data. 
SCP Independent Living Performance Measurement Survey 18

the spreadsheet without seeing it demonstrated in the webinar. 

In addition to web-based training, project directors who attended the FGP and SCP Directors Training 

Conference in Kansas City in April 2013 had an opportunity to attend the informational session that introduced 

the surveys. The four directors who remembered attending the session noted that it provided preliminary 

information about survey procedures, and so served mainly to make them aware that the surveys were coming. 

Survey Implementation Challenges 

The project directors reported few challenges in conducting the client and caregiver surveys; however, the timing 

of the surveys was the main challenge. Project directors also implied additional challenges that resulted in the 

possible departures from prescribed survey procedures, which the report discusses in the next section. 

Grantees were initially given 85 days to complete the survey, from July 8 to September 30. The due date was 

subsequently extended to December 30th to accommodate grantees that could not meet the September 30th 

deadline. While a few interviewees stated that the July to September timeframe presented no problems for them, 

other directors would have preferred more time. 

Several directors expressed concern about undertaking surveys during the summer, when project staff and 

volunteers were on vacation. These directors attributed response rate challenges in part to the timing of the 

survey. Directors generally agreed that it would be more advantageous to allow grantees to time the survey 

administration so that it aligns with their usual schedule for gathering information from clients. 

As previously noted, several project directors reported challenges in getting high response rates when relying on 

a single method of survey administration. Relying on additional methods typically helped to improve response 

rates. 

Possible Departures from Prescribed Survey Procedures 

There were several possible departures from the prescribed data collection procedures. These irregularities pose 

potential threats to reliability and validity. Project directors reported the following deviations: 

 One project director stated she only downloaded the surveys and spreadsheets. Since she apparently 

did not read the instructions, it is possible that she neglected to follow required steps or procedures. 

 As noted above, there are indications that several directors may have provided minimal training to data 

collectors, a practice that may have led to inconsistencies in the data collected across grantees. 
SCP Independent Living Performance Measurement Survey 19

 One director noted that, in some cases, Senior Companions read the survey to the client or caregiver. 

Grantees received instruction not to use Senior Companions to read the questions to clients or 

caregivers, or otherwise assist the individuals that they serve. 

 One director stated that some Senior Companions serve clients in adult day centers. For these clients, 

SCP volunteers apparently filled out the survey for the client and left “not applicable” questions blank. 

Grantees received instruction to use the survey only with homebound elderly or disabled clients, and 

were not supposed to assist clients or caregivers in completing the surveys. 

Reasons Given for High and Low Response Rates 

We asked project directors with a response rate of 85 percent or higher for their thoughts on how they were able 

to attain a high response rate. 

Several directors emphasized the importance of involving volunteer stations as partners in the process, and 

making sure they understood why the survey needed to be conducted. In this context, directors also found it 

helpful to situate the surveys in the larger context of gathering data to assess program impact on a national scale. 

Two directors mentioned that reliance on direct hand delivery of surveys to clients was particularly helpful. They 

believed that telephone interviews would be unlikely to yield adequate response rates due to client concerns 

about phone scams.9 Clients were much more likely to complete the survey when they received the survey form 

from their Senior Companion whom they knew personally and who could explain its importance. Grantees also 

found it helpful to inform clients and caregivers in advance that the survey was coming, and to facilitate return of 

completed surveys by providing a stamped self-addressed envelope. 

Additional Uses of Survey Results 

Most of the project directors we interviewed planned to use the survey results for purposes other than reporting 

on Senior Corps work plans. These additional uses include sharing results with advisory boards, volunteer 

stations and other funders; incorporating results into grant applications; and using results for program 

management. 

Data Analysis 

This section of the report details three different sets of data analyses. First, it discusses the survey results for 

 

9

 Grantees that educate their clients on the importance of avoiding phone scams may also believe that asking 

clients to participate in phone surveys sends mixed messages to their clients. 
SCP Independent Living Performance Measurement Survey 20

both the independent living client survey and the caregiver survey. The second is a reliability analysis that 

reviews the quality of the survey items including missing responses, patterns of responses across survey items, 

and underlying factors that tie together groups of survey items. The third set of analyses examines the validity of 

the survey items seeking to identify whether the underlying factors constructed from the items are related to other 

measured variables. The validity study establishes whether the underlying factors built from the data are 

meaningful, and whether the data yielded a testable factor. 

The SCP Independent Living Performance Measurement Survey’s questionnaire asked independent living clients 

and caregivers to provide self-assessed data on whether the services received improved their self-efficacy and 

perceived social support, one of the key outputs under Goal 1 of CNCS’s Strategic Plan 2011-2015. There were 

13 items in the client survey, and 12 items in the caregivers respite survey (See Table 4). The first question 

asked respondents to write in the number of hours per week they spent with their Senior Companion, another key 

output under Goal 1. Responses to the other survey items used a scale of 1 to 4, ranging from strongly disagree 

(1) to strongly agree (4). Across the two surveys, nine items were analogous to one another (indicated by 

shading in Table 4).

The analysis included responses to all the survey items. The validity analysis also used information about the 

grantees. The information on grantees consisted of the number of clients and caregivers served and the number 

of surveys the grantee administered in English, Spanish, and other languages such as Chinese, Russian, and 

Vietnamese. The independent living client data file included responses from 3,048 respondents. The caregiver 

survey data file had responses from 656 respondents. 
SCP Independent Living Performance Measurement Survey 21

Table 4: Survey Items 

Independent Living Survey (Clients) Respite Survey (Caregivers)

1. In a typical week, my Senior Corps Volunteer is with me for ____ hours. 1. In a typical week, how many hours 

Volunteer provide respite services?

does your Senior Companion 

2. I feel less lonely. 2. I feel less lonely.

3. I feel I have close ties to more people. 3. I feel I have close ties to more people.

4. I am able to do more of the things I need to do. 4. I am able to do more of the things I need to do.

5. I am able to do more of the things I want to do. 5. I am able to do more of the things I want to do.

6. I can remain living in my own home. 10. The person I care for is able to remain at home.

7. I am eating regularly scheduled meals. --

-- 6. I am able to get short-term rest and relief.

8. I am able to get to medical appointments. 8. I am able find time to attend to my 

needs.

personal and health care 

9. I am able to get to the grocery store. --

10. I am able to take care of other necessary errands/appointments. 7. I am able to find time to run errands.

11. I am more satisfied with my life. 9. I am more satisfied with my life.

12. Overall, I am satisfied with my Senior Companion volunteer. 11. Overall, I am satisfied 

Companion volunteer.

with the Caregiver Respite Senior 

13. Overall, the Senior Companion Program has met my expectations. 12. Overall, the Senior Companion 

expectations.

Program has met my 

Survey Results 

Overall, the intent of the survey items was to understand clients’ and caregivers’ experiences and perceptions of 

the benefits of SCP services. Across both surveys, clients who received services and caregivers who received 

respite care support strongly agreed that the services helped them feel less lonely and more satisfied with their 

life, and to take care of necessary errands and appointments and remain living in their home. 

Client Survey Results 

Independent living clients typically reported receiving four to six hours of service per week, although some 

reported receiving as few as one hour or as many as 40 hours. The average number of hours a client spent with 

a Senior Companion in a typical week was seven. Figure 1 and Table 5 show the frequency of the number of 

hours clients spent with a Senior Companion volunteer in a typical week. The most commonly reported number of 

hours was four. Almost one-fourth of clients (n = 700; 23%) reported receiving four hours of service per week 

from a Senior Companion volunteer. The next most common response was three hours per week (n = 475; 16%) 

and two hours per week (n = 307; 10%). About ten percent (n = 286) of clients reported spending exactly 10 

hours and six percent (n = 169) of clients reported spending exactly 20 hours with a Senior Companion. 
SCP Independent Living Performance Measurement Survey 22

Figure 1: Number of Hours Spent with Senior Companion

Table 5: Number of hours spent with a volunteer in a typical week 

Number of Hours Number of respondents Percentage of Clients (n = 3,048)

1-3 Hours 848 27.8%

4-6 Hours 1032 33.9%

7-10 Hours 625 20.5%

11-20 Hours 442 14.5%

21-39 Hours 40 1.3%

40 Hours 12 0.4%

No Response 49 1.6%

Total 3,048 100%

Overall, independent living clients strongly agreed that they were less lonely and more connected to others and 

could do more of the things they needed to do to live independently. The vast majority strongly agreed that the 

Senior Companion helped them to remain living independently and were very satisfied with the services provided 

by their Senior Companion and by the Senior Companion Program. 

Clients agreed that the Senior Companion positively affected how they felt about their life. Seventy-one percent 

strongly agreed that they were less lonely (See Figure 2). Approximately two-thirds of clients (68 percent) 

strongly agreed that they were more satisfied with their lives. A majority of clients (59 percent) strongly agreed 

that they had close ties to more people; seven percent of clients disagreed with this item. Less than ten percent 

of clients disagreed with the statements pertaining to social loneliness, although the proportion of respondents 
SCP Independent Living Performance Measurement Survey 23

agreeing or strongly agreeing varied somewhat among these items. 

Figure 2: Response Percentages – Client Survey-Social Loneliness and Social Support 

Three-quarters of clients (75 percent) strongly agreed that they were able to remain living in their own home, with 

slightly fewer reporting that they felt able to do more of the things they needed or wanted to do (See Figure 3). 

Figure 3: Response Percentages – Client Survey – Social Loneliness and Social Support 

For the four survey items addressing self-efficacy (see Figure 4), two-thirds of clients (66 percent) strongly 

agreed that they were eating regularly scheduled meals with the support of a Senior Companion. Additionally, 63 
SCP Independent Living Performance Measurement Survey 24

percent strongly agreed that they were able to get to medical appointments because of the Senior Companion. 

Slightly fewer clients (59 percent) strongly agreed that they were able to take care of other necessary errands 

and appointments; 13 percent of clients disagreed with this item. Between 13 and 14 percent of clients expressed 

disagreement with most items addressing self-efficacy. The exception was the item asking about regularly 

scheduled meals, to which nine percent of clients indicated disagreement. 

Figure 4: Response Percentages – Client Survey Self Efficacy 

The two survey items addressing overall satisfaction garnered high ratings from clients, with 89 percent strongly 

agreeing that they were satisfied with their Senior Companion, and 87 percent strongly agreeing that the Senior 

Companion Program had met their expectations. For both items, two percent of clients expressed disagreement. 
SCP Independent Living Performance Measurement Survey 25

Figure 5: Response Percentages – Client Survey Satisfaction 

Table 6 below shows the details of the item responses from the client survey, including the number of 

respondents, item mean, median, standard deviation, and proportion agreeing with each scale item.
SCP Independent Living Performance Measurement Survey 26

Table 6: Client survey items non-response, mean and median, and frequencies 

N Number of respon

who did not ans

dents 

wer

Mean Median Standard. 

Deviation

Strongly 

Disagree

Somewhat 

Disagree

Somewhat 

Agree

Strongly 

Agree

In a typical week, my 

Senior Corps Volunteer is 

with me for ____ hours

I feel less lonely.

I feel I have close ties to 

more people.

I am able to do more of 

the things I need to do.

I am able to do more of 

the things I want to do.

I can remain living in my 

own home.

I am eating regularly 

scheduled meals.

I am able to get to medical 

appointments.

I am able to get to the 

grocery store.

I am able to take care of 

other necessary 

errands/appointments.

I am more satisfied with 

my life.

Overall, I am satisfied with 

my Senior Companion 

volunteer.

Overall, the Senior 

Companion Program has 

met my expectations.

2,999

2,987

2,949

2,895

2,894

2,795

2,822

2,610

2,618

2,683

2,945

3,031

3,009

49

61

99

153

154

253

226

438

430

365

103

17

39

7.01

3.66

3.49

3.53

3.52

3.66

3.54

3.43

3.40

3.39

3.62

3.87

3.84

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

5.785

.601

.683

.712

.726

.663

.739

.886

.922

.885

.603

.431

.456

N/A

2%

2%

3%

3%

2%

3%

7%

8%

7%

1%

1%

1%

N/A

2%

6%

5%

6%

4%

6%

5%

6%

6%

3%

1%

1%

N/A

25%

34%

29%

29%

19%

25%

24%

24%

28%

28%

9%

11%

N/A

71%

59%

63%

63%

75%

66%

63%

62%

59%

68%

89%

87%
SCP Independent Living Performance Measurement Survey 27

Caregiver Survey Results 

Caregivers typically reported receiving eight to ten hours of service per week, although some reported receiving 

as few as one hour or as many as 40. The average number of respite care hours provided by a Senior 

Companion in a typical week was 11.16 hours. Figure 6 and Table 7 show the distribution of the number of hours 

caregivers received respite services from a Senior Companion volunteer in a typical week. Of the 656 caregivers 

who responded to the survey, four caregivers (less than 1%) did not respond to this item. About one third of 

caregivers (n = 206; 32%) reported receiving respite services for more than 10 hours per week; about two 

percent (n= 10) of caregivers reported receiving 40 hours of services in a typical week, while 26 percent (n = 170) 

received 10 hours of services and 14 percent (n = 88) received 20 hours of services. Other common responses 

were eight hours (n = 101; 15%) and four hours (n = 84; 13%). 

Figure 6: Frequency of Number of Hours Caregivers Received Respite Services from a Senior Companion in 

a Typical Week 
SCP Independent Living Performance Measurement Survey 28

Table 7: Distribution of the Number of Hours Caregivers Received Respite Services in a Typical Week 

Number of Hours N Percentage of Caregivers 

1-3 Hours 32 4.9%

4-6 Hours 135 20.6%

7-10 Hours 279 42.5%

11-20 Hours 171 26.1%

21-39 Hours 25 3.8%

40 Hours 10 1.5%

No Response 4 0.6%

Total 656 100%

As shown in Figure 7 and 8 below, caregivers who received ancillary benefit from respite services from a Senior 

Companion strongly agreed that they were less lonely and more connected to others and could do more of the 

things they wanted to do. The majority strongly agreed that the Senior Companion helped them to get rest and 

relief to manage their personal needs, while knowing that the person they cared for was able to remain at home. 

Caregivers were also very satisfied with the services provided by their Senior Companion and by the Senior 

Companion Program. Seventy-two percent of caregivers strongly agreed that they were able to do more of the 

things they wanted to do; five percent disagreed with this statement. Two-thirds of caregivers (66 percent) 

strongly agreed that the person they cared for was able to remain at home, with six percent disagreeing with this 

statement. Fifty-eight percent of caregivers strongly agreed that they were more satisfied with their lives, with six 

percent disagreeing with this statement. Less than ten percent of caregivers disagreed with the statements 

pertaining to social loneliness, although the proportion of respondents agreeing or strongly agreeing varied 

somewhat among these items. 

Figure 7: Response Percentages – Caregiver Survey – Social Support and Social Loneliness 
SCP Independent Living Performance Measurement Survey 29

Figure 8: Response Percentages – Caregiver Survey – Social Support and Social Loneliness 

For the three survey items addressing self-efficacy (see Figure 9), more than three-quarters of caregivers (76 

percent) strongly agreed that they were able to get short-term rest and relief, which is the primary purpose of 

caregiver respite services. Three percent of caregivers disagreed with this statement. Three-quarters of 

caregivers (76 percent) strongly agreed that they were able to find time to run errands. Additionally, 61 percent 

strongly agreed that they were able to find time to attend to their personal and health care needs; six percent of 

caregivers disagreed with this item. 
SCP Independent Living Performance Measurement Survey 30

Figure 9: Response Percentages - Caregiver Survey Self Efficacy 

The two survey items addressing overall satisfaction (see Figure10) garnered high ratings from caregivers, 86 

percent strongly agreed that they were satisfied with the Senior Companion Program. In addition, nearly threequarters of caregivers (74 percent) strongly agreed that they were satisfied with the Caregiver Respite Senior 

Companion volunteer, with three percent of caregivers indicating disagreement. 

Figure 10: Response Percentages – Caregiver Satisfaction 
SCP Independent Living Performance Measurement Survey 31

Table 8 presents the item non-response, mean, median, and frequencies for Questions 2-12 from the caregiver 

survey. The response for each item was between ‘somewhat agree’ or ‘strongly agree,’ indicated by a mean 

greater than 3, and the median for every item, except item 1, was 4.
SCP Independent Living Performance Measurement Survey 32

Table 8: Caregiver survey items non-response, mean and median, and frequencies 

N Number of respondents 

who did not answer Mean Median Standard. Deviation

Strongly 

Disagree

Somewhat 

Disagree

Somewhat 

Agree

Strongly 

Agree

In a typical week, how many 

hours does your Senior 

Companion Volunteer provide 

respite services?

652 4 11.16 10 7.162 N/A N/A N/A N/A

I feel less lonely. 635 21 3.55 4 .673 2% 4% 31% 63%

I feel 

people.

I have close ties to more 636 20 3.45 4 .692 2% 6% 37% 55%

I am able to do more of 

things I need to do.

the 648 8 3.63 4 .577 1% 3% 29% 67%

I am able to do more of 

things I want to do.

the 646 10 3.65 4 .605 1% 5% 23% 72%

I am able to get short-term rest 

and relief. 646 10 3.72 4 .550 1% 2% 21% 76%

I am able to find time to run 

errands. 643 13 3.68 4 .611 2% 3% 21% 74%

I am able find time to attend to 

my personal and health care 

needs.

636 20 3.54 4 .657 2% 4% 33% 61%

I am more satisfied with my life. 640 16 3.52 4 .623 1% 5% 37% 58%

The person I care for 

remain at home.

is able to 642 14 3.59 4 .634 1% 5% 29% 66%

Overall, I am satisfied with the 

Caregiver Respite Senior 

Companion volunteer.

651 5 3.70 4 .535 0% 2% 24% 74%

Overall, the Senior Companion 

Program has met my 

expectations.

654 2 3.85 4 .420 1% 0% 13% 86%
SCP Independent Living Performance Measurement Survey 33

Overview of Reliability and Validity Analysis 

We conducted the reliability and validity analysis in three complementary phases. First, the exploratory phase 

calculated descriptive statistics to describe the sample and survey data. The analysis provided insight about the 

degree of potential errors and outliers in responses, and assessed whether there were patterns of unusual or 

irregular responses across and within respondents. 

Next, we examined survey completeness by looking at patterns of missing responses to gain insight into 

participants’ responsiveness to the survey, and the overall validity and quality of the data. For example, if an item 

had a lot of missing values, this could have indicated that this item was problematic or confusing for respondents. 

The exploratory analysis then calculated response frequencies (total count) and percentages for each survey 

item. The analysis calculated means, medians, and standard deviations for continuous variables, such as the 

number of hours the client received SCP services. Using descriptive statistics, we also examined the possibility of 

duplicated cases where the same person was responding to the survey twice, and verified whether survey items 

had sound variability and/or ceiling effects. 

We then examined whether there were significant correlations between survey items using Pearson’s r 

correlations. The strength of inter-relations between items can indicate whether any items on the survey 

substantially overlapped to the point where they measured the same thing. 

We evaluated the internal consistency of items using Cronbach’s alpha to identify whether items asking about 

specific aspects of the Senior Companion experience (Items 2-11 from the client survey, items 2-9 from the 

caregiver survey) when combined, could be considered as a single global measure of overall Senior Companion 

experience. An alpha value above .70 is a general threshold for acceptable consistency across items. The 

analysis examined changes in the alpha value as each item was removed from the alpha calculation. With this 

iterative process, a substantial increase in the alpha when omitting an item indicated that responses for that item 

were not consistent with responses on the other items, and that this item did not affect the overall consistency 

among groups of items in the survey. 

We examined whether survey items could be grouped into distinct measures of Senior Companion experience. A 

factor is the name given to an underlying construct that is not measured directly. The factor analysis of the client 

and caregiver respite surveys showed the number of underlying factors (latent construct variables) into which the 

survey items could be collapsed, as well as the relative contribution of each item to a given factor (the factor 

loading). 
SCP Independent Living Performance Measurement Survey 34

In order to determine whether a factor analysis would be appropriate, we examined the correlation and 

Cronbach’s Alpha of survey items. We proceeded to the validity analysis once it we determined the factor 

analysis could be applied to identify the underlying constructs. 

The validity analysis examined the association between each latent construct variable and grantee 

characteristics. We used a regression model to test whether the correlations between the latent construct 

variables and grantee characteristics was statistically significant. We adjusted the standard errors to account for 

the nested structure of the data since the latent variables were measured at the client and caregiver level, and 

the grantee characteristics were measured at the grantee level. 

We conducted separate analyses for clients and caregivers, since the sample respondents to each survey 

received different services. We present the descriptive, consistency, and factor analysis results from the client 

survey, followed by those from the caregiver survey. Then, we discuss the validity of the emerging latent 

constructs from the factor analysis, presenting client and caregiver results simultaneously. 

Reliability Analysis- Client Survey 

Exploratory and Inter-item Reliability Results 

Review of Descriptive Statistics. There was relatively low number of survey items that were not answered. 

There were no outliers, and only a few variables were strongly correlated with one another. The self-efficacy and 

social loneliness items were consistent with one another, with people who responded strongly to one item also 

responding strongly to other similar items. 

Survey Completeness. Table 9 shows the number of survey items that were not answered by the clients that 

completed the survey. Seventy-five percent of clients (n = 2,274) answered all survey items, eight percent (n = 

229) of clients did not answer four or more survey items. 
SCP Independent Living Performance Measurement Survey 35

Table 9: Completeness of the SCP Independent Living Clients Survey 

Number of Survey Questions Not Answered Number of respondents Percent of all respondents 

0 2,274 74.61%

1 229 7.51%

2 102 3.35%

3 214 7.02%

4 70 2.30%

5 46 1.51%

6 57 1.87%

7 26 0.85%

8 10 0.33%

9 11 0.36%

10 4 0.13%

11 1 0.03%

12 4 0.13%

Total 3,048 100%

Given the high percentage of clients that responded to all or most of the survey items, all analyses were 

conducted using cases with no missing values on the variables used for the particular procedure in question (i.e., 

listwise deletion), and no missing data techniques were used. 

As Table 6 (Client Survey Items Non-response) indicates, there was a higher rate of non-response for some 

items compared to others, namely, “I am able to get to medical appointments,” “I am able to get to the grocery 

store,” and “I am able to take care of other necessary errands/appointments.” These items had an approximate 

non-response rate of between 10 and 15 percent. To a lesser extent, there were higher rates (approximately 8%) 

of non-response for the following items: “I can remain living in my own home,” and “I am eating regularly 

scheduled meals.” It is possible that the high rate of non-response is due to the fact that these services probably 

did not apply to the clients, and so they chose not to respond. 

We examined whether there were patterns of non-response among grantees for items where a “not applicable” 

choice on the survey would be useful10. Missing data patterns were coded into a new variable, where a value of 1 

indicated that a client had skipped all four items that potentially did not apply to some clients. A score of 0 on this 

new variable indicated that the client answered at least one of the items. In all, 92 clients (3%) had missing 

responses for all four items. A cross-tabulation of the clients with missing responses for all four items showed that 

41 respondents (45%) of the 92 cases missing on all four items came from a single grantee. This result supports 

information from interviews with project directors who reported that data collectors left these items blank for 

institutionalized clients. 

 

10 I am eating regularly scheduled meals; I am able to get to medical appointments; I am able to get to the grocery 

store; I am able to take care of other necessary errands/appointments 
SCP Independent Living Performance Measurement Survey 36
SCP Independent Living Performance Measurement Survey 37

Figure 11: Proportion of Clients with Particular Response Patterns 

Response Patterns across Survey Items. We investigated the possibility of duplicate cases, where the same 

client appeared to be answering the survey twice. Identifying and removing any duplicate cases improves the 

overall integrity and validity of the data, and discerning that there are no, or only a small number of, duplicate 

cases improves confidence that the survey was administered effectively. There was limited individual level data 

collected in the survey to facilitate the identification of duplicate cases; the limited range of responses allowed for 

each item (a four-item scale) further limited the possibility of identifying duplicate cases. 

Figure 11 shows the percentage of clients with particular response patterns across items. More than a quarter 

(29%) of clients answered ‘strongly agree’ to every item they answered, and almost two-thirds of clients’ (62%)

answers were in the range of ‘strongly agree’ to ‘somewhat agree’. This may be evidence of a ceiling effect, 

which suggests that given the wording of the question or the response options, the respondents favored the 
SCP Independent Living Performance Measurement Survey 38

highest response for all items. 

The survey response patterns suggest that, though there appeared to be potential ceiling effects for the items, it 

was not especially common for respondents to give the same response to every item on the survey.

Inter-Item Correlations and Consistency Analysis 

Appendix A presents the correlations (Pearson’s r) for Questions 2-13 on the client survey. The items were all 

positively associated with one another (higher scores on one item were associated with higher scores on another 

item). The majority of the correlations were estimated at or above .40, indicating the items were moderately 

associated with one another. Correlations of around or above .70 were observed for several of the survey items, 

which suggested substantial overlap or redundancy of items, or wording such that items were insufficiently 

differentiated from one another. This may also be indicative of a ceiling effect, given that the distribution of many 

of the items rested between options 3 and 4 on the response scale. 

The Cronbach’s alpha for these items was .88, indicating responses to these questions were strongly consistent 

with one another. We examined changes in the alpha value when each item has been removed from the alpha 

calculation. Table 10 presents the results. There is no item where deletion from the scale would change the alpha 

substantially. 

Table 10: Cronbach’s Alpha if Item Deleted 

Cronbach's Alpha 

Item Deleted

if 

All 10 items .88

I feel less lonely. .88

I feel I have close ties to more people. .87

I am able to do more of the things I need to do. .86

I am able to do more of the things I want to do. .87

I can remain living in my own home. .87

I am eating regularly scheduled meals. .87

I am able to get to medical appointments. .86

I am able to get to the grocery store. .86

"I am able to take care of other necessary errands/appointments. .86

I am more satisfied with my life. .87

In summary, the items from the survey appear to be internally consistent with one another, as indicated by the 

correlation and alpha results. 

Validity Study- Client Survey 

The validity analysis for the client survey examined whether the items appeared to measure the survey domains 
SCP Independent Living Performance Measurement Survey 39

of social loneliness and social support, and self-efficacy. First, we conducted a factor analysis of the survey 

items. Second, we examined whether the factors varied in predictable ways based on grantee characteristics. 

Factor Analysis 

The results from the first-stage factor analysis11, in Figure 12 and Table 11, show that specifying two factors was 

a good-fit solution, with an Eigenvalue greater than 1 for the second factor (the Eigenvalue indicates the 

explanatory benefit specifying a given number of factors over a model with one fewer group). 

Figure 12: Results from First-Stage Exploratory Factor Analysis, Client Survey 

The rotated factor pattern for the two-factor solution when survey items 2-11 were entered together is shown in 

 

11 We conducted a principal components analysis, which is more amenable to non-normally-distributed indicators 

than a maximum likelihood method, using promax rotation for multiple orthogonal factors. 
SCP Independent Living Performance Measurement Survey 40

Table 11. 

Table 11: Factor loadings First Factor Analysis, All Items 

Item Component 1 Component 2

I feel less lonely. 0.83

I feel I have close ties to more people. 0.88

I am able to do more of the things I need to do. 0.61

I am able to do more of the things I want to do. 0.70

I can remain living in my own home. 0.50

I am eating regularly scheduled meals. 0.37 0.36

I am able to get to medical appointments. 0.93

I am able to get to the grocery store. 0.95

"I am able to take care of other necessary errands/appointments. 0.88

I am more satisfied with my life. 0.69

The highlighted factor loadings indicate that the item (“I am eating regularly scheduled meals”) was ‘crossloaded,’ which means that when this item is included in the factor analysis, the factors are potentially less distinct 

from one another than they could be. In this case, it is preferable to omit this item from the final solution. Once 

this item is excluded, the analysis revealed two factors from the ten Likert scale items from the client survey. As 

shown in Table 12, these two factors resembled the social loneliness and support and self-efficacy constructs 

that were hypothesized at the beginning of the study. The first latent construct factor included six items that we 

labeled ‘Social Loneliness and Social Support.’ The second factor included three items, which appeared to 

capture the clients’ ability to take care of certain tasks, errands, and appointments because of the support 

provided by the program, and so this second factor was labeled ‘Perceived Self Efficacy.’

Table 12: Latent Construct Variables, Factor Loadings for Second Adjusted Factor Analysis, Reduced 

Number of Items 

Component 1: (Latent Component 2: (Latent 

Item Construct) Social Loneliness Construct) Perceived Self 

and Social Support Efficacy

I feel less lonely 0.83

I feel I have close ties to more people 0.87

I am able to do more of the things I need to do 0.61

I am able to do more of the things I want to do 0.70

I can remain living in my own home 0.49

I am more satisfied with my life 0.69

I am able to get to medical appointments 0.92

I am able to get to the grocery store 0.95

I am able to take care of other necessary 

errands/appointments 0.88

The two factors in the final factor model were positively correlated with one another at .52. Valid factors were 

calculated for 2,363 clients, due to the fact that complete data on all the indicators was required. 
SCP Independent Living Performance Measurement Survey 41
SCP Independent Living Performance Measurement Survey 42

Reliability Analysis- Caregiver Survey

Review of Descriptive Statistics. As with the client survey, we examined the data for completeness, but found a 

relatively low amount of missing data. There were no outliers, and only a few variables were strongly correlated 

with one another. The survey items were consistent with one another, with people who responded strongly to one 

item also responding strongly to other similar items. 

Survey Completeness. Table 13 shows the number of items caregiver respondents did not answer. Over 90 

percent of caregivers answered all survey items; about two percent did not answer four or more of the items. 

Table 13: Completeness of the SCP Independent Living Caregivers Respite Survey 

Number of Survey 

Answered

Questions not Number of Respondents Percent of All Respondents 

(N=656)

0 602 91.8%

1 22 3.4%

2 12 1.8%

3 8 1.2%

4 5 0.8%

5 2 0.3%

6 1 0.2%

7 1 0.2%

8 1 0.2%

11 2 0.3%

Total 656 100%

Given the high percentage of caregivers who responded to all or most of the survey items, all analyses were 

conducted using cases with no missing values on the variables used for the particular procedure in question (i.e., 

listwise deletion), and no missing data techniques were used. 

Response Patterns Across Survey Items. Figure 13 shows the percentage of caregivers with particular 

response patterns across items. About 30 percent of caregivers answered ‘strongly agree’ to every item, and 

almost two-thirds (63%) of responses were in the range of ‘strongly agree’ and ‘somewhat agree.’ This may be 

evidence of a ceiling effect, which suggests that given the wording of the question or the response options, the 

respondents favored the highest response for all items. Less than one percent of caregivers answered either 

‘strongly disagree’ and ‘somewhat disagree’, while six percent of caregivers answered either ’somewhat disagree’ 

and ‘somewhat agree.’ 

The survey response patterns suggested that, though there might be ceiling effects for the items on the survey, it 

was not especially common for respondents to give the same response to every question on the survey. 
SCP Independent Living Performance Measurement Survey 43

Figure 13: Proportion of Caregivers with Particular Average Response Patterns 

We investigated the possibility of duplicate cases in the caregiver survey. There are no individual level data that 

would be useful in identifying duplicate cases and, with the limited range of responses allowed in the survey (a 

four-item scale), it was not feasible to investigate whether there were duplicate cases. 

Inter-Item Correlations and Consistency Analysis 

The correlations (Pearson’s r) for questions 2-12 in the caregiver survey showed that the items were all positively 

associated with one another (higher scores on one item were associated with higher scores on another item). 

(See Appendix A for full correlation tables.) The degree of association between items was low to moderate, 

indicated by the fact that the majority of correlations were between .20 and .40. Correlations above .70 were not 

observed between any items, indicating less of a chance of a problematic overlap between items compared to 

the client survey. 
SCP Independent Living Performance Measurement Survey 44

The Cronbach’s alpha for the nine items (items 2-10) in the caregiver survey was .87, indicating that responses to 

these questions were strongly consistent with one another. Table 14 shows the list of items used in the 

Cronbach’s alpha calculation, and the alpha should each item be deleted. There is no item where deletion from 

the scale would change the alpha substantially. 

Table 14: Alpha if Item Deleted 

Cronbach's Alpha 

Item Deleted

if 

All 9 Items .87

I feel less lonely. 0.87

I feel I have close ties to more people. 0.86

I am able to do more of the things I need to do. 0.85

I am able to do more of the things I want to do. 0.85

I am able to get short-term rest and relief. 0.85

I am able to find time to run errands. 0.86

I am able find time to attend to my personal and health care needs. 0.85

I am more satisfied with my life. 0.85

The person I care for is able to remain at home. 0.85

Validity Study- Caregiver Survey 

The validity analysis for the caregiver survey examined whether the items measured the survey domains of social 

loneliness and perceived social support. First, we conducted a factor analysis of the survey items. In subsequent 

analysis, we examined whether the factors varied in predictable ways based on grantee characteristics. 

Factor Analysis 

The factor analysis 12 for the items in the caregiver survey was somewhat conclusive. First-stage analyses, 

shown in Figure 14, found that specifying two factors was a good-fit solution, with an Eigenvalue greater than 1 

for the second factor. 

 

12 We conducted a principal components analysis, which is more amenable to non-normally-distributed indicators 

than a maximum likelihood method, using promax rotation for multiple orthogonal factors.
SCP Independent Living Performance Measurement Survey 45

Figure 14: Results from First-Stage Exploratory Factor Analysis, Caregiver Respite Survey 

Table 15 shows the rotated factor pattern for the two-factor solution using items 2-10. 

Table 15: Factor Loadings First Factor Analysis, All Nine Items 

Item Component 1 Component 2

I feel less lonely. 0.89

I feel I have close ties to more people. 0.87

I am able to do more of the things I need to do. 0.73

I am able to do more of the things I want to do. 0.42 0.41

I am able to get short-term rest and relief. 0.62

I am able to find time to run errands. 0.63

I am able find time to attend to my personal and health care needs. 0.87

I am more satisfied with my life. 0.81

The person I care for is able to remain at home. 0.91

The highlighted factor loadings indicate that this item “I am able to do more of the things I want to do” is ‘crossloaded,’ and including this item means that the factors are potentially less distinct from one another than they 

could be. Thus, it may be preferable to omit this item from the final factor solution, resulting in the factor 
SCP Independent Living Performance Measurement Survey 46

components and structure shown in Table 16. The analysis revealed two latent variables from the nine Likert 

scale items from the caregiver survey. One of the latent variables captures the caregivers’ perceived social 

support, and includes five items. The second latent variable captures the caregivers’ social loneliness, and 

includes three items. 

Table 16: Latent Construct Variables, Factor loadings for Second Adjusted Factor Analysis, Reduced 

Number of Items 

Component 1: (Latent Component 2: (Latent 

Item Construct) Perceived Construct) Social 

Social Support Loneliness

I feel less lonely. 0.90

I feel I have close ties to more people. 0.88

I am able to get short-term rest and relief. 0.58

I am able to do more of the things I need to do. 0.74

I am able to find time to run errands. 0.64

I am able find time to attend to my personal and health care needs. 0.86

I am more satisfied with my life. 0.80

The person I care for is able to remain at home. 0.90

The two factors in the final factor model were positively correlated with one another at .47. Valid factors were 

calculated for 607 clients, due to the fact that complete data on all the indicators was required. 

The validity of the latent constructs from the client and caregiver surveys was considered at the individual level by 

calculating the correlation between the constructs and the number of hours a client or caregiver reported 

receiving SCP services. No correlation was above .15 (the maximum-sized correlation found was .10), thus the 

results did not conclusively indicate any meaningful relationship between the number of hours spent with a 

companion or receiving respite services, social loneliness, and perceived social support. 

We assessed the validity of the survey items by examining the association between each latent variable (Table 

12 and Table 16) and grantee characteristics. We used a regression model to test whether the client and 

caregiver latent variables were significantly related to grantee characteristics. Grantee characteristics included 

the number of established clients and caregivers served (i.e., served for at least 1 year) that grantees provided at 

the time they submitted their client and caregiver survey data. The regression model included the client or 

caregiver latent variable as the dependent variable and grantee characteristics as the independent variable, with 

each independent variable tested separately. We calculated robust standard errors to account for the nested 

structure of the data. The dependent variables were measured at the client or caregiver level, the independent 

variables were measured at the grantee level. Given that there are multiple clients and caregivers per grantee, 

the responses from those respondents with the same grantee might be more similar to each other in contrast to a 

simple random sample. If the standard errors were not adjusted to account for the nested structure of the data, 

the test of statistical significance would be biased. 
SCP Independent Living Performance Measurement Survey 47

On average, grantees served about 113 established clients (SD = 171.30), with a range of 12 to 1,040 clients. 

The average number of established caregivers receiving respite services was 23 (SD = 29.58), with a range of 

zero to 148 caregivers (See Table 17). 

Table 17: Clients and Caregivers Served 

Number of 

Grantees Minimum Maximum Mean StandardDeviation

Number of Clients Served for More than One 

Year 38 12 1040 112.95 171.301

Number of Caregivers Served for More than One 

Year 38 0 148 23.11 29.578

Correlation of Grantee Characteristics with Client and Caregiver Constructs 

Table 18 shows the correlation coefficients between the social support, loneliness and self-efficacy constructs 

and number of clients and caregivers served. The asterisks indicate a significant association between the latent 

variable and grantee characteristics. 

Table 18: Correlations of Social Loneliness and Social Support, Self-Efficacy Constructs with Number of 

Clients and Caregivers Served 

Client 

Constructs

Client 

Constructs

Caregiver 

Constructs

Caregiver 

Constructs

Social Loneliness 

and Support

Perceived Selfefficacy Social Support Social Loneliness

Number of Clients Served for More than One Year .01 .14* -.09 .07

Number of Caregivers Served for More than One Year -.04 -.01 -.39* .03

* Significant association at p=.05, as indicated by bivariate OLS regression, standard errors are adjusted for 

nesting of clients and caregivers within grantee. 

Increased clients’ social support scores were significantly associated with a higher number of clients served. 

Caregivers’ social support scores were negatively associated with number of caregivers served. Neither of the 

associations were particularly large in magnitude (moderate to strong associations would be indicated by a 

correlation of .50 or above), and the inconsistent direction of the associations make them difficult to interpret. 

As such, this attempt at validating the constructs from the survey is somewhat inconclusive. It would be useful to 

collect other client and caregiver related variables (such as demographic information, mental health status, health 

history) as well as a more diverse list of grantee characteristics, which would be useful in a future validity study of

the surveys. 
SCP Independent Living Performance Measurement Survey 48

Limitations 

The reliability/validity analysis yielded some important findings, but some limitations should be noted. First, the 

analysis included a small number of items at the client and caregiver levels, and a few measures were available 

at the grantee level as well. As such, we were unable to conduct a full confirmatory factor analysis to test whether 

the factors that emerged from the data, and that could be tweaked based on the current set of responses, fit a 

second set of data and shared relations with other variables that one might expect. Second, the number of 

positive responses and observed ceiling effects perhaps signifies that survey responses are subject to aspects of 

social desirability, wherein clients and caregivers who are program beneficiaries want to answer the survey in a 

way that would please program staff and administrators. There was some evidence from the interviews to 

suggest that survey data was subject to positive bias. At least one project director told data collectors that funding 

“depends on meeting performance measures” and another director observed that clients and caregivers 

sometimes appeared to give the answer they thought program personnel wanted to hear. 

Lastly, the survey responses appear to indicate high levels of program satisfaction, and high levels of social 

support and capabilities among clients and caregivers, but the current surveys do not allow for comparison of 

program beneficiaries before and after Senior Corps program services have been received. It is also not possible, 

given the current data, to compare program participants with non-participants to investigate whether program 

benefits were causally linked to participation in the Senior Corps program. 

Conclusions and Recommendations 

The survey results showed that the majority of independent living clients spent three to four hours per week with 

their Senior Companion, with approximately one quarter spending more than 10 hours per week with a 

companion. A similar profile emerged from the caregiver survey, wherein the majority of caregivers reported 

receiving respite services for three to four hours per week, with over a third reporting receiving services for more 

than 10 hours per week. 

Clients and caregivers expressed satisfaction with the Senior Companion program, and program participants 

reported high rates of perceived social support and self-efficacy. The modal response to each of the Likert scale 

questions was ‘strongly agree,’ and the number of clients and caregivers reporting that they either ‘somewhat or 

strongly agreed’ with each question was approximately 75 percent or more across both surveys.

Overall, the SCP grantees did a good job of administering the survey. Response rates were high among grantees 

(89 percent) and the data delivered was consistent and, in all but one case, met quality standards for inclusion in 
SCP Independent Living Performance Measurement Survey 49

the analysis. The average response rate was above 70 percent across the grantees for each survey. Interviews 

with eight grantees revealed that grantees often drew on their experiences with previous performance 

measurement surveys. As a result, they relied mostly on the written survey instructions provided in the T/TA 

materials. Attendance was strong at the survey orientation meeting, though lower for live follow-up events. 

Several grantees asked the Help Desk about accessing recorded webinars, and over half the grantees called the 

Help Desk. Most requests resulted in a referral to written T/TA materials. A small number of grantees required 

more extensive help. The patterns of responses on the survey were negligibly associated with the grantee’s client 

and caregiver response rates. For a handful of items, responses were significantly more favorable when grantees 

submitted their data prior to the submission deadline of September 30, 2013. 

The interviews with grantees provided some evidence that grantees’ previous survey experience had helped 

them administer these surveys. At the same time, most project staff reported that they tended to sift through the 

written materials to find key information and skim the remaining materials. Most felt that a condensed version of 

the T/TA materials would be more useful for project staff that already had experience conducting similar surveys. 

An unintended outcome was that some grantees strayed from the approved survey protocol. The most commonly 

reported variances were not fully training survey helpers and not fully maintaining a neutral survey process. 

The survey data appeared to be reliable and valid. The Likert scale items had some possible ceiling effects, 

where many responses to a given question were ‘strongly agree’, and a portion of both clients and caretakers 

answered ‘strongly agree’ to every question. Aside from this, the variability of responses was adequate to 

suggest that respondents were reading the questions and considering their responses. A few of the questions 

showed strong correlations with one another, indicating that these questions may overlap to a large degree. 

The items on the client and caregiver surveys were internally consistent with each other. In the Cronbach’s alpha 

analysis, all the items measured positive impacts or satisfaction with the program. The fact that they were 

consistent with one another means that if a person benefited from, or was satisfied with, the program in one way, 

then they would more positively rate other benefits or satisfaction aspects. In examining the questionnaire, one 

would expect this series of associations, so the fact that responses were consistent adds confidence that the 

questions were being answered in a realistic and anticipated fashion. 

Confirming the expectations used in developing the questionnaire, the survey items on each survey aligned into 

groups or factors related to separate questionnaire domains. There were two factors for each survey. For the 

client survey, one grouping consisted of items related to ‘Social Loneliness and Support’ and the other group was 

‘Perceived Self-efficacy’. For the caregiver survey, the factors were ‘Social Support’ and ‘Social Loneliness’. 

Though the items selected for the different factors were slightly different, the factors emerging from the client and 

caregiver survey responses were relatively comparable. For both surveys, there was one item in each survey that 
SCP Independent Living Performance Measurement Survey 50

cross-loaded on both factors, and these items might be candidates for revision, either by making them more 

direct indicators of one of the underlying factors or by separating them more distinctly from the two already 

identified factors. 

The validity of the survey items and the factors was inconclusive. There were only two grantee-level variables 

available for the validity analysis. Having more analysis variables would be beneficial, at both the client/caregiver 

and grantee levels, for validating the survey items. 

Recommendations for Future Surveys 

A key aspect of the SCP Independent Living study was to provide suggestions for improving the data collection 

efforts, and identifying barriers and best practices for achieving high response rates and overall data quality. The 

recommendations presented here encompass both best practices and lessons learned. The discussion of 

recommendations has separate sections for recommendations related to survey implementation and to survey 

items. The recommendations drew on the following sources: 

 Meetings of the Field Working Group (FWG) and the Technical Working Group (TWG); 

 Comments received from grantees through the Senior Corps Survey Help Desk; 

 Feedback from individuals engaged in survey pre-testing; 

 Comments from project directors at the Foster Grandparent and Senior Companion Directors 

Conference, April 2013; 

 Feedback received from project staff participating in web-based group training; 

 Comments from eight grantees that participated in qualitative interviews to assess their experience 

implementing surveys and using related T/TA resources; and 

 Analysis of the survey data. 

Survey Implementation 

Stakeholders were generous with feedback, resulting in many recommendations regarding survey 

implementation. To facilitate the discussion of survey implementation recommendations, this section has 

separate headings for communications, timing of data collection, use of field and technical working groups (FWG 
SCP Independent Living Performance Measurement Survey 51

and TWG), training and technical assistance materials, and survey administration. 

Communication 

The recommendations that emerged from grantee feedback regarding communication pertain to future 

administrations of the SCP Independent Living Performance Measurement questionnaires as a census (as was 

done in 2013). Some of these recommendations are also applicable to conducting the survey as part of grantees’ 

annual performance measurement. 

 C1: Keep grantees informed about survey tasks and timeline. Keeping grantees appraised of 

important dates and tasks is essential to the success of conducting a census of independent living 

clients and caregivers. The key dates and tasks include the date when a survey will start and when it will 

end, and what grantees need to do at key junctures in the survey process. As was done in this study, 

the use of clear, consistent, and timely communication prior to survey rollout, at the midpoint of the 

survey, and before close-out kept grantees informed about survey requirements and available technical 

assistance. Project directors noted that a schedule of milestones distributed well in advance greatly 

increased their ability to coordinate the data collection resources and requirements. Early notification 

also allowed project directors to take full advantage of T/TA resources and to train survey helpers. Welltimed communication also can be helpful in getting grantee buy-in. For example, CNCS could 

disseminate a calendar of due dates and a list of relevant resources through the Knowledge Network 

and via email. 

 C2: Whenever possible, provide project directors with frequent reminders about deadlines.

Senior Companion project directors multi-task to manage staff and volunteers, maintain communication 

with local partners, and strive to ensure the highest quality service experience for volunteers and clients. 

In this environment, a single email about an important survey task or deadline may go unnoticed or soon 

be forgotten. Use of repeated reminders through multiple channels (e.g., email from Senior Corps 

headquarters, email and conference call reminders from CNCS state office staff) was a best practice 

that helped grantees remember and stay abreast of important survey tasks. 

 C3: Encourage grantees to seek buy-in from stakeholders early. Key stakeholders include the 

project’s advisory council, volunteers, and partner agencies that connect clients and caregivers. 

Grantees should be encouraged to contact these stakeholders early to explain the importance of the 

data collection effort and to identify any issues that may need to be addressed before data collection 

begins. Grantees can also enlist stakeholders to help with the survey process, for example, by providing 

lists of clients and caregivers to include in the survey and by letting staff, clients, and caregivers know 
SCP Independent Living Performance Measurement Survey 52

when to expect the surveys. As appropriate, grantees can also promote stakeholder buy-in by sharing 

results with partners. 

 C4: Consider providing grantees with information to communicate with stakeholders about the value of 

the surveys for measuring outcomes. Grantees reported that stakeholders were more motivated to 

participate in a survey when they understood the potential “payoff” of participation for themselves and 

others. One key payoff was the ability to collect information on client and caregiver outcomes associated 

with services provided by Senior Companions. For future data collections, grantees can be encouraged 

to share information via the Knowledge Network on effective ways of using survey results to inform 

stakeholders and potential funders about the positive outcomes experienced by clients and caregivers. 

 C5: Consider providing regular and timely information to grantees about the availability of 

survey resources. This recommendation promotes good practices in conducting the surveys and builds

on grantees’ appreciation of emailed links to relevant T/TA resources. These links can be included in 

regular and frequent communications, such as reminders about survey tasks at the start, mid-point, and 

close-out of the survey process. 

Timing of Data Collection 

Although there was limited flexibility in FY2013 to adjust the timing of data collection, some adjustments were 

made in response to stated grantee needs. In the future, greater inclusion of grantees in data collection planning 

may promote higher rates of grantee participation and increase response rates. The following recommendations 

were identified during FY2013: 

 TDC1: Allow grantees more time to complete data collection. Several project directors requested 

that CNCS extend the deadline for survey completion. The original 85 day time period was too short. 

CNCS extended the time period another three months and additional grantees participated. 

 TDC2: Incorporate flexibility into the data collection schedule. Project directors often have their 

own data collection schedules. Flexibility in scheduling would allow grantees to coordinate CNCS data 

collection requirements with their own schedules and with the data collection requirements of other 

funders. For large grantees, data collection takes considerable coordination with volunteer stations, 

which adds to the time required to complete the process. Allowing for greater flexibility in the timing of 

data collection would help grantees complete data collection with a minimum of disruption to other 

program functions. 
SCP Independent Living Performance Measurement Survey 53

 TDC3: Coordinate various CNCS studies to avoid “study fatigue”. Feedback from project directors 

indicated concerns about burdening volunteers and clients with too many surveys administered in a 

relatively short time span. Administering two similar surveys in rapid succession also has the potential to 

confuse grantees and respondents, and to increase refusal rates. For example, SCP grantees 

participated in three CNCS sponsored studies: a volunteer survey, the client and caregiver independent 

living study, and requests for sampling information for a telephone survey of clients. Studies either 

overlapped or followed one another in quick succession. Timing all data collection so that studies do not 

overlap and there are intervals between studies would reduce “study fatigue” and confusion.

 TDC4: Consider consulting grantees when planning the timing of the data collection and providing 

earlier notice of proposed timing. Early communication with grantees involved would provide timely 

feedback regarding the feasibility of proposed data collection periods and allow projects to anticipate 

staffing needs during these same periods. 

Using Field and Technical Working Groups 

The Field Working Group (FWG) and the Technical Working Group (TWG) provided useful feedback and 

suggestions regarding design and implementation of the studies. The FWG was composed of Senior Corps 

project directors and provided feedback on T/TA materials and on the feasibility of study design and timing. In 

addition, several FWG members assisted with pre-testing of surveys and related materials. Ad hoc meetings with 

some of the TWG members with expertise in specific technical areas proved to be very effective for refining and 

strengthening study designs. CNCS may wish to consider using similar types of Technical and field working 

groups in the future. We identified the following recommendations related to these types of consultation groups: 

 WG1: Involve working groups in early stages of survey and material development to maximize 

their ability to give input. Due to the project schedule, the working groups were formed after the 

survey and materials had already received OMB clearance, which constrained the ability to integrate 

their feedback into the current data collection. Ideally, these groups and their timeline would allow for 

maximum integration of feedback into plans and materials. 

 WG2: Rely on working group members to address focused topics. Use of ad hoc groups consisting 

of a subset of working group members proved highly successful. It allowed for in-depth discussions with 

individual members who have specialized knowledge or expertise in a particular topic area. Reliance on 

a smaller group for a specific task also provided greater flexibility in planning and scheduling meetings. 

Future engagement with working groups could include explicit planning for meetings with working group 

members to address focused topics. 
SCP Independent Living Performance Measurement Survey 54

 WG3: Continue to rely on online scheduling tools for organizing working group meetings. The 

use of emails and the online scheduling applications facilitated communication with FWG and TWG 

members to schedule meetings. Working group members reported no problems using these tools, which 

allowed for seamless coordination among the members. 

Training and Technical Assistance Materials 

Suggestions for improving the training and technical assistance materials came from FWG and TWG members, 

pilot-test participants, post-survey interviews with grantees and a review of Help Desk data. The suggestions are 

as follows: 

 TTA1: Maximize the utilization of T/TA resources. Early and frequent communication with CNCS 

State Offices and grantees about the availability of resources could lead to effective utilization of T/TA. 

Providing grantees with more detailed information on upcoming web-based training would also help 

project staff make informed decisions about the potential benefit of attending the training. 

 TTA2: Provide a condensed version of essential T/TA information for experienced grantees. To 

avoid grantees applying incorrect procedures that would undermine data quality, condensed T/TA 

materials could include a tip sheet of “Do’s and Don’ts” highlighting the most essential procedural 

aspects of the data collection process and minimize the possibility of compromising data quality (e.g., 

Senior Companions assisting their clients to complete the survey). The condensed materials could 

include references directing grantees to specific sections of the more in-depth materials. CNCS State 

Office staff could also refer less experienced grantees to the more comprehensive version of the T/TA 

materials. 

Survey Administration 

The FWG and TWG members, and pilot participants reviewed the survey instruments. Specific feedback received 

about the surveys and materials is included below. 

 SA1: Consider employing multiple methods whenever possible to collect data from clients and 

caregivers. In the post-survey interviews, grantees with the highest response rates used multiple 

methods. The methods that seemed to be particularly effective for the project directors were hand 

delivery and in-person interviews. For the future, grantees that choose to conduct telephone interviews 

should allow adequate time for this activity.

 SA2: Grantees that choose to rely on telephone surveys can increase cooperation by directly 
SCP Independent Living Performance Measurement Survey 55

referencing the name of the volunteer who serves the client when introducing the survey (e.g., “Please 

comment on the services provided by Sandy, your Senior Companion”). Project Directors reported that 

clients and caregivers were more likely to recognize the call as coming from a valid source rather than 

from a phone scammer. This practice addressed seniors’ concerns about and vulnerability to phone 

scams.

 SA3: Consider translating surveys into additional languages. Several grantees that contacted the 

Help Desk requested the surveys be made available in additional languages, including Somali and 

Amharic. It may be useful to canvas grantees to find out which languages are prevalent in their service 

population.

 SA4: Rely on Senior Companions to inform clients and caregivers about the survey in advance.

Members of the FWG noted that relying on Senior Companions to inform the clients and caregivers they 

serve about an upcoming survey was the best way to avoid any confusion on the part of potential 

respondents and to increase cooperation. The Senior Companion represents a trustworthy source of 

information.

 SA5: Create a version of the client survey designed specifically for use with surrogate or proxy 

respondents. Many clients served by Senior Companions have physical and/or cognitive disabilities 

that prevent them from completing the survey without the help of a surrogate respondent. In the current 

study, grantees relied on one version of survey (i.e., for clients) to administer the survey to 

surrogates/proxies. In the future, it would be helpful to provide grantees with a version of the survey 

specially designed for use with surrogate/proxy respondents. This version would include the following 

adjustments:

o Screening questions to determine whether the person will be an appropriate proxy;

o Use of “the client” instead of “I” in the items;

o Exclusion of items of a subjective nature (i.e., questions about how the client feels); and

o A “don’t know” response option.

 SA6: Continue to provide grantees with the Client-Caregivers Surveys Spreadsheet as a tool for 

aggregating survey data. Many grantees found it helpful to have a programmed spreadsheet for 

aggregating survey data and calculating survey results. Grantees reported almost no problems using the 

spreadsheet. The spreadsheet could also serve as a convenient tool for CNCS State Offices to monitor 
SCP Independent Living Performance Measurement Survey 56

the data collection efforts of grantees. 

Recommendations for the Survey Instrument

Below are the recommendations for potential future improvements of the survey instruments, based on the 

findings from the survey data analysis and from discussions with the FWG, TWG, and SCP Grantees: 

SI1: Consider revising the items that were strongly related to one another. This would be items such as 

items 12 and 13 on the client survey (“Overall I am satisfied with my Senior Companion volunteer”, “Overall the 

Senior Companion Program has met my expectations”), and items 11 and 12 on the caregiver survey (“Overall I 

am satisfied with my caregiver respite Senior Companion volunteer”, “Overall the Senior Companion Program 

has met my expectations”). The revision would make them more distinct, if possible, or perhaps even reduce the 

number of questions from two to one. 

 SI2: Examine the factors that emerged from the client and caregiver survey items, and consider their 

alignment with the underpinning constructs the survey was designed to measure. It would be useful to 

consider whether the questionnaires include sufficient items to give reliable estimates of key constructs. 

While grantees appreciated the brevity of the client and caregiver surveys, TWG members noted that 

the surveys only contained two items measuring social ties and perceived social support (items 2 and 3 

in the client and caregiver surveys). The reliability of these constructs could be improved without adding 

substantially to respondent burden by adding several questions exploring additional facets of the key 

constructs. 

 SI3: Consider revising or omitting questions that are cross-loaded on multiple factors. One item 

each from the client survey (‘I am eating regularly scheduled meals’) and one item from the caregiver 

survey (“I am able to do more of the things I want to do”) were removed from the factor analysis 

because they were moderately associated with more than one factor. These items might be potential 

candidates for dropping from future surveys to improve the strength of constructs emerging when all the 

survey items are used for a factor analysis. 

 SI4: Consider expanding data collection to include more questions about client and caregiver 

characteristics. Including grantee characteristics and multiple time points would allow for continued 

validation of the survey instrument and increased understanding of the benefits of the program. 

 SI5: Consider adding an answer options for “not applicable” to the Likert scale items on both 

surveys. It would also be advisable to provide instructions on how to deal with items that do not apply 
SCP Independent Living Performance Measurement Survey 57

(e.g., “leave question blank if it does not apply to you”). Project director interviews and non-response 

analysis indicated that some of the items might not have applied to the respondent’s situation or 

companion’s role. 

 SI6: Consider reordering the response scale with “strongly agree” on left (positive to negative) or take 

out the numbers. Some clients may see “1” as positive as in “My companion is number 1!” (both 

surveys, 2-13). 

 SI7: Consider reordering the questions so the survey does not start with a focus on what 

respondents’ lack. For example, list items 7, 8, 9, 11 (see Table 4), followed by items 1 through 6, and 

then items 10, 12, and 13. For example, the item “I feel less lonely” may set a negative tone at the 

beginning of the survey. Some respondents may not answer it because they would see it as not 

applicable. 

 SI8: Consider expanding the Caregiver survey to provide a definition for the term “respite” 

directly on the survey (questions 1-13). 

 SI9: Consider omitting either question four or five from the Caregiver survey, as respondents have 

difficulty discerning a difference between “need to” and “want to”.

 SI10: Consider adding a self-reported health item to survey, (e.g., “Would you say your health is 

excellent, very good, good, fair, or poor?”). This addition would allow for the analysis of possible well 

being and subjective health benefits of social ties and perceived support. 

 SI11: Expand on the questions’ response sections in both surveys to include a place for the 

respondent to write additional comments. This addition would provide grantees with “stories” useful 

for qualitative reporting. 

 SI12: Consider adding an item to the Client survey, “I have increased access to opportunities 

and services in my community.” This additional question would recognize the role Senior 

Companions play in helping to get clients out of the house and into the community. 

 SI13: Consider adding an item to the Client survey, “Having a Senior Companion helps me live 

independently.” This is a major goal of the service and the other questions do not measure it as 

directly. 

 SI14: Consider adding the item to the Caregiver survey, “My stress as a caregiver has 
SCP Independent Living Performance Measurement Survey 58

decreased.” This is a major goal of the service and the other questions do not measure it as directly. 

Overall, this section presents a wealth of suggestions for improving the SCP Independent Living Performance 

Measurement Survey received from stakeholders including grantees, volunteers, clients, caregivers, and 

researchers. All of the suggestions seek to strengthen the survey and many seek to expand it. As such, they 

demonstrate the interest and commitment of the SCP community for valid, reliable and useful information on SCP 

services to clients and caregivers.
SCP Independent Living Performance Measurement Survey 59

Appendix A 

Client Survey: Correlations, Items 2 through 13 

Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10 Q11 Q12

Q2: I feel less lonely. --

Q3: I feel I have close ties to more people. .52 --

Q4: I am able to do more of the things I need to do. .38 .43 --

Q5: I am able to do more of the things I want to do. .40 .47 .74 --

Q6: I can remain living in my own home. .36 .35 .40 .41 --

Q7: I am eating regularly scheduled meals. .33 .38 .37 .34 .42 --

Q8: I am able to get to medical appointments. .28 .24 .42 .35 .38 .46 --

Q9: I am able to get to the grocery store. .25 .25 .48 .43 .35 .36 .74 --

Q10: "I am able to take care of other necessary errands/appointments." .29 .31 .51 .47 .38 .42 .71 .78 --

Q11: I am more satisfied with my life. .46 .45 .50 .49 .39 .38 .36 .37 .45 --

Q12: Overall, I am satisfied with my Senior Companion volunteer. .44 .43 .36 .37 .38 .35 .31 .30 .33 .48 --

Q13: Overall, the Senior Companion Program has met my expectations. .44 .42 .38 .39 .39 .34 .32 .30 .34 .49 .79.
SCP Independent Living Performance Measurement Survey 60

Caregiver Survey: Correlations, Items 2 through 12 

Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10 Q11

Q2: I feel less lonely. --

Q3: I feel I have close ties to more people. .60 --

Q4: I am able to do more of the things I need to do. .27 .37 --

Q5: I am able to do more of the things I want to do. .37 .39 .58 --

Q6: I am able to get short-term rest and relief. .41 .52 .42 .58 --

Q7: I am able to find time to run errands. .24 .30 .55 .47 .48 --

Q8: I am able find time to attend to my personal and health care needs. .28 .33 .52 .44 .44 .51 --

Q9: I am more satisfied with my life. .35 .39 .52 .42 .41 .36 .65 --

Q10: The person I care for is able to remain at home. .23 .29 .55 .35 .33 .43 .61 .65 --

Q11: Overall, I am satisfied with the Caregiver Respite Senior Companion volunteer. .13 .19 .50 .25 .24 .30 .67 .60 .67 --

Q12: Overall, the Senior Companion Program has met my expectations. .31 .37 .43 .47 .45 .37 .41 .46 .33 .44
SCP Independent Living Performance Measurement Survey 61

Non-Response Analysis, Client Survey: Comparing Mean Response Base on Grantee Response Rate13

Group Mean Standard 

Deviation t df Sig. (2-tailed)

Q1 In a typical 

hours

week, my Senior Corps Volunteer is with me for ____ Response Rate at or above 

80% 10.85 6.02 2.01 35.40 0.052

Q1 In a typical 

hours

week, my Senior Corps Volunteer is with me for ____ Response Rate below 80% 7.49 4.24 2.01 35.40 0.052

Q2 I feel less lonely Response Rate at or above 

80% 3.68 0.21 0.99 32.02 0.331

Q2 I feel less lonely Response Rate below 80% 3.61 0.24 0.99 32.02 0.331

Q3 I feel I have close ties to more people Response Rate at or above 

80% 3.42 0.33 0.10 35.91 0.919

Q3 I feel I have close ties to more people Response Rate below 80% 3.41 0.28 0.10 35.91 0.919

Q4 I am able to do more of the things I need to do Response Rate at or above 

80% 3.46 0.25 -0.13 25.50 0.895

Q4 I am able to do more of the things I need to do Response Rate below 80% 3.48 0.40 -0.13 25.50 0.895

Q5 I am able to do more of the things I want to do Response Rate at or above 

80% 3.48 0.22 0.74 23.26 0.465

Q5 I am able to do more of the things I want to do Response Rate below 80% 3.40 0.41 0.74 23.26 0.465

Q6 I can remain living in my own home Response Rate at or above 

80% 3.63 0.36 -0.17 35.58 0.865

Q6 I can remain living in my own home Response Rate below 80% 3.64 0.26 -0.17 35.58 0.865

Q7 I am eating regularly scheduled meals Response Rate at or above 

80% 3.47 0.42 -0.23 35.58 0.823

Q7 I am eating regularly scheduled meals Response Rate below 80% 3.50 0.38 -0.23 35.58 0.823

Q8 I am able to get to medical appointments Response Rate at or above 

80% 3.32 0.51 -0.53 31.73 0.602

Q8 I am able to get to medical appointments Response Rate below 80% 3.42 0.59 -0.53 31.73 0.602

Q9 I am able to get to the grocery store Response Rate at or above 

80% 3.24 0.55 -0.81 34.98 0.425

Q9 I am able to get to the grocery store Response Rate below 80% 3.38 0.48 -0.81 34.98 0.425

Q10 I am able to take care of other necessary errands/appointments Response Rate at or above 

80% 3.24 0.45 -0.67 32.46 0.506

Q10 I am able to take care of other necessary errands/appointments Response Rate below 80% 3.34 0.51 -0.67 32.46 0.506

 

13 Analysis for all non-response was independent samples t-tests, where equal variances were not assumed 
SCP Independent Living Performance Measurement Survey 62

Group Mean Standard 

Deviation t df Sig. (2-tailed)

Q11 I am more satisfied with my life Response Rate at or above 

80% 3.63 0.26 0.28 35.99 0.783

Q11 I am more satisfied with my life Response Rate below 80% 3.61 0.20 0.28 35.99 0.783

Q12 Overall, I am satisfied with my Senior Companion volunteer Response Rate at or above 

80% 3.87 0.14 0.35 35.90 0.732

Q12 Overall, I am satisfied with my Senior Companion volunteer Response Rate below 80% 3.85 0.11 0.35 35.90 0.732

Q13 

expe

Overall, the Senior Companion Program has met my 

ctations

Response Rate at or above 

80% 3.86 0.13 0.75 35.90 0.457

Q13 Overall, the Senior Companion Program has met my 

expectations Response Rate below 80% 3.83 0.10 0.75 35.90 0.457

Note: Number of grantees with client response rate at or above 80% was 21; Number of grantees with response rate below 80% was 

17 
SCP Independent Living Performance Measurement Survey 63

Non-Response Analysis, Caregiver Survey: Comparing Mean Response Base on Grantee Response Rate 

Group Mean Standard

Deviation t df Sig. (2-tailed)

Q1 In a typical week, how many hours does 

Volunteer provide respite services?

your Senior Companion Response Rate at or 

above 80% 13.05 5.86 2.64 28.49 0.013

Q1 In a typical week, how many hours does your Senior 

Volunteer provide respite services?

Companion Response Rate below 

80% 8.54 3.61 2.64 28.49 0.013

Q2 I feel less lonely. Response Rate at or 

above 80% 3.47 0.49 -0.33 26.98 0.744

Q2 I feel less lonely. Response Rate below 

80% 3.52 0.34 -0.33 26.98 0.744

Q3 I feel I have close ties to more people. Response Rate at or 

above 80% 3.45 0.44 0.65 23.71 0.520

Q3 I feel I have close ties to more people. Response Rate below 

80% 3.35 0.38 0.65 23.71 0.520

Q4 I am able to do more of the things I need to do. Response Rate at or 

above 80% 3.69 0.29 -0.18 25.51 0.855

Q4 I am able to do more of the things I need to do. Response Rate below 

80% 3.71 0.23 -0.18 25.51 0.855

Q5 I am able to do more of the things I want to do. Response Rate at or 

above 80% 3.66 0.27 1.90 16.29 0.076

Q5 I am able to do more of the things I want to do. Response Rate below 

80% 3.42 0.36 1.90 16.29 0.076

Q6 I am able to get short-term rest and relief. Response Rate at or 

above 80% 3.69 0.45 1.08 28.36 0.288

Q6 I am able to get short-term rest and relief. Response Rate below 

80% 3.54 0.28 1.08 28.36 0.288

Q7 I am able to find time to run errands. Response Rate at or 

above 80% 3.67 0.36 0.92 24.64 0.364

Q7 I am able to find time to run errands. Response Rate below 

80% 3.56 0.29 0.92 24.64 0.364

Q8 I am able find time to 

needs.

attend to my personal and health care Response Rate at or 

above 80% 3.60 0.34 0.09 24.39 0.930

Q8 I am able find time to 

needs.

attend to my personal and health care Response Rate below 

80% 3.59 0.28 0.09 24.39 0.930

Q9 I am more satisfied with my life. Response Rate at or 

above 80% 3.59 0.41 0.08 25.37 0.935

Q9 I am more satisfied with my life. Response Rate below 

80% 3.57 0.32 0.08 25.37 0.935
SCP Independent Living Performance Measurement Survey 64

Group Mean Standard

Deviation t df Sig. (2-tailed)

Q10 The person I care for is able to remain at home. Response Rate at or 

above 80% 3.72 0.38 0.06 22.96 0.954

Q10 The person I care for is able to remain at home. Response Rate below 

80% 3.71 0.34 0.06 22.96 0.954

Q11 Overall, I am satisfied 

Companion volunteer.

with the Caregiver Respite Senior Response Rate at or 

above 80% 3.85 0.22 -0.36 26.37 0.724

Q11 Overall, I am satisfied 

Companion volunteer.

with the Caregiver Respite Senior Response Rate below 

80% 3.87 0.16 -0.36 26.37 0.724

Q12 Overall, the Senior Companion Program has met my 

expectations.

Response Rate at or 

above 80% 3.84 0.18 0.68 20.43 0.505

Q12 Overall, the Senior 

expectations.

Companion Program has met my Response Rate below 

80% 3.79 0.18 0.68 20.43 0.505

Note: Number of grantees with caregiver response rate at or above 80% was 20; Number of grantees with response rate below 80% 

was 12. 
SCP Independent Living Performance Measurement Survey 65

Non-Response Analysis: Comparing Client and Caregiver Mean Response Base on When Grantees Submitted their Data 

Group Mean Standard

Deviation t df Sig. (2-tailed)

Q1 In a typical 

hours

week, my Senior Corps Volunteer is with me for ____ Data Sent Prior to 

Deadline 11.54 6.36 1.55 17.17 0.140

Q1 In a typical 

hours

week, my Senior Corps Volunteer is with me for ____ Data Sent on or After 

Deadline 8.34 4.85 1.55 17.17. 0.140

Q2 I feel less lonely Data Sent Prior to 

Deadline 3.75 0.11 2.59 36.00 0.014

Q2 I feel less lonely Data Sent on or After 

Deadline 3.60 0.25 2.59 36.00 0.014

Q3 I feel I have close ties to more people Data Sent Prior to 

Deadline 3.48 0.27 0.99 25.23 0.331

Q3 I feel I have close ties to more people Data Sent on or After 

Deadline 3.38 0.32 0.99 25.23 0.331

Q4 I am able to do more of the things I need to do Data Sent Prior to 

Deadline 3.52 0.26 0.71 28.27 0.486

Q4 I am able to do more of the things I need to do Data Sent on or After 

Deadline 3.45 0.35 0.71 28.27 0.486

Q5 I am able to do more of the things I want to do Data Sent Prior to 

Deadline 3.52 0.22 1.13 31.54 0.266

Q5 I am able to do more of the things I want to do Data Sent on or After 

Deadline 3.41 0.35 1.13 31.54 0.266

Q6 I can remain living in my own home Data Sent Prior to 

Deadline 3.79 0.11 3.03 33.09 0.005

Q6 I can remain living in my own home Data Sent on or After 

Deadline 3.56 0.35 3.03 33.09 0.005

Q7 I am eating regularly scheduled meals Data Sent Prior to 

Deadline 3.60 0.33 1.33 27.05 0.193

Q7 I am eating regularly scheduled meals Data Sent on or After 

Deadline 3.43 0.42 1.33 27.05 0.193

Q8 I am able to get to medical appointments Data Sent Prior to 

Deadline 3.48 0.62 0.78 18.20 0.443

Q8 I am able to get to medical appointments Data Sent on or After 

Deadline 3.31 0.50 0.78 18.20 0.443

Q9 I am able to get to the grocery store Data Sent Prior to 

Deadline 3.37 0.60 0.51 18.01 0.613

Q9 I am able to get to the grocery store Data Sent on or After 

Deadline 3.27 0.48 0.51 18.01 0.613

Q10 I am able to take care of other necessary errands/appointments Data Sent Prior to 

Deadline 3.32 0.48 0.31 22.23 0.756
SCP Independent Living Performance Measurement Survey 66

Group Mean Standard

Deviation t df Sig. (2-tailed)

Q10 I am able to take care of other necessary errands/appointments Data Sent on or After 

Deadline 3.27 0.49 0.31 22.23 0.756

Q11 I am more satisfied with my life Data Sent Prior 

Deadline

to 3.67 0.24 0.74 20.33 0.467

Q11 I am more satisfied with my life Data Sent on or After 

Deadline 3.60 0.23 0.74 20.33 0.467

Q12 Overall, I am satisfied with my Senior Companion volunteer Data Sent Prior to 

Deadline 3.91 0.06 2.32 36.00 0.026

Q12 Overall, I am satisfied with my Senior Companion volunteer Data Sent on or After 

Deadline 3.84 0.14 2.32 36.00 0.026

Q13 

expe

Overall, the Senior Companion Program has met my 

ctations

Data Sent Prior to 

Deadline 3.91 0.08 2.66 33.13 0.012

Q13 Overall, the Senior Companion Program has met my 

expectations

Data Sent on or After 

Deadline 3.82 0.13 2.66 33.13 0.012

Group Mean Standard

Deviation t df Sig. (2-tailed)

Q1 In a typical week, how 

Volunteer provide respite

many hours does your Senior 

services?

Companion Data Sent Prior to 

Deadline 12.69 6.69 0.84 15.97 0.415

Q1 In a typical week, how many hours does your Senior 

Volunteer provide respite services?

Companion Data Sent on or After 

Deadline 10.77 4.88 0.84 15.97 0.415

Q2 I feel less lonely. Data Sent Prior to 

Deadline 3.62 0.29 1.40 28.83 0.171

Q2 I feel less lonely. Data Sent on or After 

Deadline 3.42 0.49 1.40 28.83 0.171

Q3 I feel I have close ties to more people. Data Sent Prior to 

Deadline 3.58 0.25 1.98 28.99 0.058

Q3 I feel I have close ties to more people. Data Sent on or After 

Deadline 3.32 0.46 1.98 28.99 0.058

Q4 I am able to do more of the things I need to do. Data Sent Prior to 

Deadline 3.81 0.18 2.02 28.69 0.053

Q4 I am able to do more of the things I need to do. Data Sent on or 

Deadline

After 3.64 0.29 2.02 28.69 0.053

Q5 I am able to do more of the things I want to do. Data Sent Prior to 

Deadline 3.73 0.18 2.55 28.97 0.016

Q5 I am able to do more of the things I want to do. Data Sent on or After 

Deadline 3.49 0.35 2.55 28.97 0.016
SCP Independent Living Performance Measurement Survey 67

Group Mean Standard

Deviation t df Sig. (2-tailed)

Q6 I am able to get short-term rest and relief. Data Sent Prior to 

Deadline 3.78 0.16 1.98 25.55 0.058

Q6 I am able to get short-term rest and relief. Data Sent on or After 

Deadline 3.56 0.46 1.98 25.55 0.058

Q7 I am able to find time to run errands. Data Sent Prior to 

Deadline 3.78 0.19 2.14 28.93 0.041

Q7 I am able to find time to run errands. Data Sent on or After 

Deadline 3.56 0.38 2.14 28.93 0.041

Q8 I am able find time to 

needs.

attend to my personal and health care Data Sent Prior to 

Deadline 3.74 0.15 2.49 28.05 0.019

Q8 I am able find time to 

needs.

attend to my personal and health care Data Sent on or After 

Deadline 3.51 0.35 2.75 28.96 0.010

Q9 I am more satisfied with my life. Data Sent Prior to 

Deadline 3.78 0.21 2.75 28.96 0.010

Q9 I am more satisfied with my life. Data Sent on or After 

Deadline 3.47 0.40 2.75 28.96 0.010

Q10 The person I care for is able to remain at home. Data Sent Prior to 

Deadline 3.83 0.20 1.61 28.75 0.118

Q10 The person I care for is able to remain at home. Data Sent on or After 

Deadline 3.65 0.42 1.61 28.75 0.118

Q11 Overall, I am satisfied 

Companion volunteer.

with the Caregiver Respite Senior Data Sent Prior to 

Deadline 3.90 0.12 1.08 28.90 0.287

Q11 Overall, I am satisfied 

Companion volunteer.

with the Caregiver Respite Senior Data Sent on or After 

Deadline 3.83 0.23 1.08 28.90 0.287

Q12 Overall, the Senior Companion Program has met my 

expectations.

Data Sent Prior to 

Deadline 3.85 0.13 0.73 27.92 0.469

Q12 Overall, the Senior Companion 

expectations.

Program has met my Data Sent on or After 

Deadline 3.81 0.20 0.73 27.92 0.469

Note: Number of grantees submitting data prior to September 30th 2013 was 12; Number of grantees submitting data on or after 

September 30th 2013 was 26. 
SCP Independent Living Performance Measurement Survey 68

Appendix B 

The SCP Independent Living Performance Measurement Survey consisted of 13 items in the client survey, and 12 items in the caregiver respite survey. The 

first question asked respondents to write in the number of hours per week they spent with their Senior Companion. Responses to the other survey items used a 

scale of 1 to 4, ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (4). 

Thirty-nine (n=39) grantees participated. One grantee administered surveys to both established and non-established clients and caregivers. It was not possible 

to determine which responses were from “established” respondents, this grantee was excluded from all analyses, and from the individual-level response rate 

calculations. Of the 38 grantees, 31 also administered the caregiver survey. 

The independent living client data file consisted of 3,048 respondents. The caregiver survey data file consisted of 656 respondents. 
SCP Independent Living Performance Measurement Survey 69

SCP Independent Living Performance Measurement Survey, Frequency of Survey Items from Clients 

Number of 

N respondents 

who did not Mean Strongly Disagree

Somewhat 

Disagree

Somewhat 

Agree

Strongly 

Agree

answer

Q1. In a typical week, my Senior

with me for ____ hours

Corps Volunteer is 2,999 46

7.01

Minimum = 1

Maximum = 40

N/A N/A N/A N/A

Q2. I feel less lonely. 2,987 61 3.66 48 60 751 2128

Q3. I feel I have close ties to more people. 2,949 99 3.49 50 169 1003 1727

Q4. I am able to do more of the things I need to do. 2,895 153 3.53 74 151 842 1828

Q5. I am able to do more of the things I want to do. 2,894 154 3.52 79 164 825 1826

Q6. I can remain living in my own home. 2,795 253 3.66 63 113 531 2088

Q7. I am eating regularly scheduled meals. 2,822 226 3.54 84 168 717 1853

Q8. I am able to get to medical appointments. 2,610 438 3.43 187 143 631 1649

Q9. I am able to get to the grocery store. 2,618 430 3.40 217 147 632 1622

Q10. I am able to take care of other necessary 

errands/appointments. 2,683 365 3.39 194 150 757 1582

Q11. I am more satisfied with my life. 2,945 103 3.62 34 87 832 1992

Q12. Overall, I am satisfied with my Senior 

Companion volunteer. 3,031 17 3.87 28 24 267 2712

Q13. Overall, the Senior Companion Program has 

met my expectations. 3,009 39 3.84 30 25 328 2626
SCP Independent Living Performance Measurement Survey 70

Number of 

N respondents 

who did not Mean Strongly Disagree

Somewhat 

Disagree

Somewhat 

Agree

Strongly 

Agree

answer

Q1. In a typical week, how many hours does your 

Senior Companion Volunteer provide respite 

services?

652 4

11.16

Minimum = 1

Maximum = 40

N/A N/A N/A N/A

Q2. I feel less lonely. 635 21 3.55 13 26 194 402

Q3. I feel I have close ties to more people. 636 20 3.45 11 40 234 351

Q4. I am able to do more of the things I need to do. 648 8 3.63 5 17 191 435

Q5. I am able to do more of the things I want to do. 646 10 3.65 5 30 149 462

Q6. I am able to get short-term rest and relief. 646 10 3.72 7 12 134 493

Q7. I am able to find time to run errands. 643 13 3.68 11 17 138 477

Q8. 

hea

I am able find time to attend to my personal and 

lth care needs. 636 20 3.54 10 28 209 389

Q9. I am more satisfied with my life. 640 16 3.52 4 32 234 370

Q10. The person I care for is able to remain at home. 642 14 3.59 7 30 184 421

Q11. Overall, I am satisfied with the Caregiver 

Respite Senior Companion volunteer. 651 5 3.70 3 16 153 479

Q12. Overall, the Senior Companion Program has 

met my expectations. 654 2 3.85 4 3 83 564
SCP Independent Living Performance Measurement 

Survey: Process, Rationale, Results, and 

Recommendations

September 2014

The Corporation for National and Community Service

The mission of the Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS) is to improve lives, strengthen 

communities, and foster civic engagement through service and volunteering. CNCS, a federal agency, engages 

more than five million Americans in service through AmeriCorps, Senior Corps, the Social Innovation Fund, the 

Volunteer Generation Fund, and other programs, and leads the President's national call to service initiative, United 

We Serve. For more information, visit NationalService.gov. 

Senior Corps 

Senior Corps connects today’s 55+ with the people and organizations that need them most. We help them 

become mentors, coaches or companions to people in need, or contribute their job skills and expertise to 

community projects and organizations. Volunteers receive guidance and training so they can make a contribution 

that suits their talents, interests, and availability. 

Conceived during John F. Kennedy's presidency, Senior Corps currently links more than 360,000 Americans to 

service opportunities. Their contributions of skills, knowledge, and experience make a real difference to 

individuals, nonprofits, and faith-based and other community organizations throughout the United States. 

JBS International, Inc.

JBS International, Inc. is a women-owned firm founded in 1985. JBS delivers professional services to clients in 

the public and private sectors. JBS focuses on a broad array of human services systems and populations, 

especially vulnerable and underserved populations.