Feasibility of using a video diary methodology with older African Americans living alone

Abstract

Objectives

The goal of this research was to determine whether video diary, a qualitative, self-recorded, video-ethnographic method, is feasible for use among older African Americans (AAs) who live alone. The research, which stems from a larger study on aging in place, focuses specifically on the pros and cons of the video diary and provides recommendations for improving the methodology.

Methods

Twelve participants were engaged in a 90-minute training on how to record videos using tablet computers, seven days of recording video diaries, and one in-person interview.

Results

While all participants reported being comfortable with using tablet computers to record video diaries, many participants expressed the need for additional training and assistance. In addition, video diaries recorded by participants commonly exhibited issues (e.g. framing, gaze, and audibility) that compromised video quality.

Discussion

Video diary may be an effective method for collecting information from older African Americans. However, some suggestions for improving this methodology are providing in-depth video diary and additional camera training, establishing multiple points of contact for technical support, and providing male participants with additional practice.

Keywords

Ethnography video recording tablet computers minority health

Introduction

In 2015, approximately 8.5% of the world’s population was aged 65+, a number expected to double by 2050 (He et al., 2016). Aging in the United States mirrors global trends (He et al., 2016). With the growing number of older adults, particularly those living alone, there has been increased attention on how to help them age in place (Carr et al., 2013; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2013). Aging in place is “the ability to live in one’s own home and community safely, independently, and comfortably, regardless of age, income, or ability level” (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2016). There are numerous benefits to aging in place, such as cost savings and quality of life linked to an older adult’s maintenance of autonomy (Sixsmith and Sixsmith, 2008).

Our study stems from a broader study and describes an innovative methodology for studying aging in place. In this introduction, we describe general literature on aging in place, followed by literature on the video diary methodology.

Aging in place

Most older adults prefer to age in place (AARP, 2010), particularly because of their ties to the local community (Sixsmith and Sixsmith, 2008; Wiseman, 1980), attachment to their homes and possessions (Rowles, 1990; Wiles et al., 2012), and the desire not to overburden family members (Jennings et al., 2014). However, there are multiple personal and home-related structural barriers that may hinder some older adults’ ability to age in place (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2013; Lehnert et al., 2011). Factors influencing successful aging in place are broad and complex, involving the interactions between a person, their environment, and technology. For example, the Convoy model highlights the influence of social networks on the health outcomes of adults across their life course (Kahn and Antonucci, 1980). More specifically, key characteristics of relationships (e.g. length, quality, structure, and function), moderated by factors such as personal attributes (e.g. gender), can influence health behavior/maintenance (Ajrouch et al., 2001; Kahn and Antonucci, 1980). These relationships are operationalized through varying levels of emotional, informational, or instrumental social support that indirectly or directly affect an individual’s ability to age in place (Antonucci and Akiyama, 1987; Antonucci et al., 2013). However, barriers and facilitators that contribute to aging in place among ethnic minority populations, such as African Americans (AAs), are not well researched.

For AAs, aging in place may be more challenging than for the general population because of their higher rates of chronic disease and decreased ability to afford home modifications (Bayer et al., 2000; US Department of Health and Human Services, 2015). Older AAs have the highest levels of obesity, hypertension, cholesterol, and heart disease (Gallup, 2014), which can hinder their ability to perform their normal or instrumental activities of daily living. In addition, the poverty rate among older AAs is two and a half times greater than that of older whites (Cubanski et al., 2015), making housing renovations, such as widening a bathroom door or installing safety bars, challenging (Bawden, 2016).

Video diary methodology

To understand general challenges associated with aging in place among older adults (including AAs), researchers have employed sundry of qualitative methods, including focus groups and interviews (Fausset et al., 2011; Lum et al., 2016; Peek et al., n.d.). While qualitative research methods can provide an in-depth understanding of barriers to aging in place, some methods may be subject to bias (Bartlett, 2012). For example, recall bias can occur when researchers ask the participant to recount events over long intervals (Ganz et al., 2005). Researchers need minimally obtrusive observational methods with low susceptibility to bias for gaining information over an extended period. Technologies, such as self-recorded videos, may fill this gap more effectively than other traditional methods (e.g. telephone interviews; Neuwirth et al., 2012). For instance, video data can help researchers identify incongruences between what people communicate in an interview and their physical actions/expressions. Therefore, this study aims to assess the feasibility of using video diaries to elicit perceived barriers, facilitators, and potential solutions for aging in place among older AAs living alone.

Video diary (a form of video ethnography) is a relatively new methodology that enables the researcher to gather observational data about a person’s lived experiences through participant-recorded videos (National Centre for Research Methods Working Paper, 2012). Video diary has been used to explore constructs such as children's learning dispositions (Noyes, 2004) and students’ attitudes towards mathematics (Larkin and Jorgensen, 2014; Larkin and Jorgensen, 2016). The video diary method is useful because it limits the researcher–participant interaction, which can potentially reduce researcher-imposed bias. The method can also be implemented over longer periods of time because the researcher does not have to be present (Buchwald et al., 2009). Assessing older adults’ activity levels over an extended period is advantageous because it provides a better perspective on their routines. This approach also eliminates some recall bias, given the frequency at which the participant records a video diary. Another potential benefit of video diary is that it provides a less intrusive way of collecting data from individuals within their homes (National Centre for Research Methods Working Paper, 2012), which may ease older adults’ privacy concerns related to technology use by providing them with control of when the camera is on (Demiris et al., 2009).

While video diary could be effective for studying aging in place among older AAs, there has been a paucity of research on the feasibility of this approach among older adults. More specifically, we are interested in determining whether older AAs are able to implement this methodology and what training is required for them to do so independently. There has been well-documented participation of diverse older adults in photo-ethnographic studies, which could be indicative of potential success of the video diary methodology (Lewinson, 2015; Novek and Menec, 2014; Thomas et al., 2013). Thomas et al. (2013) used Photovoice, a photo-ethnographic methodology, in conjunction with audio recording to collect data from middle-aged and older AA adults about how they made general health decisions. They found that Photovoice was not only feasible for collecting data, but the addition of audio led to even richer data than the traditional camera-only Photovoice methodology (Thomas et al., 2013). In addition, older adults are increasingly adopting technologies with video recording capabilities (e.g. tablet computers; Anderson, 2015; Smith, 2014b). Specifically, 57% of older adults report using the internet, and more older adults own tablets (27%) than smartphones (18%) (Smith, 2014b).

It is noted, however, that older AAs with lower education and incomes comprise a smaller percentage of technology users (Anderson, 2015; Smith, 2014a). Older AAs may need extensive training prior to recording videos. Despite this disparity, we posit that tablet-based video diaries may be a feasible and acceptable means of collecting data if older AA participants are provided with adequate technology access and training. Furthermore, coupling video diary methods with traditional methods (e.g. in-depth interviews and surveys) may provide a means to triangulate study findings (Jick, 1979).

Purpose

The purpose of this study is to determine whether video diary is a feasible methodology for eliciting perceived barriers, facilitators, and potential solutions for aging in place among older AAs living alone. According to the National Institutes of Health, feasibility related to technology use includes assessments of a population’s prior experience using technology, identifying any anticipated problems, and exploring options to overcome these challenges (Rajadhyaksha, 2010). In this paper, we provide a detailed account of the strengths and weaknesses of using this methodology and offer recommendations for improving its effectiveness. Our findings about actual barriers and facilitators to aging in place have been submitted for publication elsewhere.

Methods

Participant recruitment

Academic and community partners were solicited to assist with recruitment, including multiple university departments, two AA churches, and one independent-living apartment complex. We recruited a convenience sample of 12 (seven females and five males) AA adults aged 65+ who: (1) spoke English, (2) lived alone, (3) reported no cognitive or physical impairment that prevented their active participation in study activities, and (4) expressed a willingness to participate in an in-home interview. Data collected from two additional males are not reported here as they did not meet eligibility criteria of living alone. Our target sample size was based on past research utilizing Photovoice (Thomas et al., 2013).

Study activities

Phase I: Training (90 minutes)

All training activities took place in the homes of participants. After obtaining informed consent, each participant completed a short interview survey that collected demographic information (age, annual income, education level, status of employment, and health insurance), technology fluency (Bunz, 2004) and prior technology use, as well as a modified and combined version of the Katz Index of Independence in Activities of Daily Living (ADL; Shelkey and Wallace, 1999) and the Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (IADL; Lawton and Brody, 1969) scales, which measure level of independence and in-home mobility. All three scales have been reported to have high reliability and validity (Bunz, 2004; Lawton and Brody, 1969; Shelkey and Wallace, 1999).

Each participant received a 10-inch Dragon Touch Android ™ tablet equipped with a standard video recording application. The tablet and video recording application was examined by a human factors specialist on the research team prior to purchase to ensure that it was suitable for older adults (e.g. text and button size). The tablet was also issued with a stand that could buttress the computer during recording and a full-color, step-by-step guidebook on recording a video diary. The guidebook was composed of images of our research assistant demonstrating the steps to turn on the tablet, finding the video recording application, and ensuring the application was recording (see Figure 1 for an example instruction). The step-by-step guide and the training process (described below) were pretested on three volunteers who met our study eligibility criteria.

Figure 1.

Step-by-step guidebook provided to participants prior to the video diary training.

Participants then engaged in a training called the “name game,” adapted from the Lunch and Lunch’s (2006) field guide for participatory video, which provides training activities to teach the skills necessary to independently record video. The facilitator carried out each task in the guide to demonstrate how to record video diaries. The participant was then asked to follow the facilitator’s verbal instructions using the tablet with multiple reiterations until they were comfortable recording videos independently. Two adaptations were made to the original Lunch and Lunch training guide. First, the field guide, originally intended to train individuals to use video cameras, was adapted to accommodate tablet-based video recording. Second, our training was implemented one-on-one as opposed to a group format.

Phase II: Implementation of video diary project

Each participant was provided a binder with seven copies of a list of five questions to guide the participant’s daily video diary entries for one week. These questions were a modification of the ADL (Shelkey and Wallace, 1999) and IADL (Lawton and Brody, 1969) scales, and included:

Thinking about your day today, did you have any difficulties with:

Home maintenance such as vacuuming, washing dishes, or taking out the trash?

Typical activities of daily living such as getting up from the sofa, remembering to take your medication, or trouble getting in or out of the bath/shower?

Getting out of the house to run errands (e.g. shopping) or going to the doctor?

Talking with or visiting friends or family with whom you wanted to have contact?

Are there any other tasks that you wanted to accomplish today, but did not accomplish because you had difficulty OR were there tasks that you accomplished, but with great difficulty?

After each question, participants were also asked to answer two follow-up questions:

Based on the difficulty you had with each task that you mentioned, can you identify any specific barrier that prevented you from accomplishing this task?

Based on the difficulty you had with the tasks you named, can you identify anything that could have made it easier to accomplish these tasks?

Participants were asked to record video diary entries (one per day for seven days, not exceeding 15 minutes) prior to their usual bedtime. Bedtime was determined by the participant at the conclusion of the training. We believed recording videos at the same time each day would routinize the process, making it easier to remember. The tablet was programmed with an alarm (not used in prior studies) to sound at the same time each night based on the participants’ bedtime. Participants were also asked to keep their tablets at their bedside. Participants were called daily during the first three days of the study as a reminder to record their video diaries; participants were not called beyond the three days so as not to overburden them. A member of the research team collected each tablet at the end of the week for transcription and analysis.

Phase III: Follow-up interviews

Six to 12 weeks following the video diary project, each participant engaged in an in-home interview. The 60-minute interview focused on clarifying challenges emerging during Phase II. Table 1 provides several sample interview questions by theme.

Table 1.

Sample follow-up interview questions by theme.

No.	Theme	Sample question
1	Quality of video diary training	In what way(s) was the technology training to use the tablet helpful?
2	Suggested improvements for video diary training	In what ways could the technology training be improved?
3	Comfort with video diary (usability)	Please describe your experience using the tablet for recording videos during the video diary project.
4	Seeking assistance with video diary	Did you ask anyone outside of the research team questions about using the tablet?
5	Satisfaction with video diary	How did recording the videos about your daily experience make you feel?

Data analysis

Transcript analysis of video diary implementation challenges

All data were transcribed, organized, and coded using Nvivo 10 (QSR International, 2010). Data were analyzed using a multistep approach to limit researcher-imposed bias (Malterud, 2001). Two researchers individually open-coded multiple transcripts, conceptualizing data into thematic categories (Strauss and Corbin, 1997). The research team then discussed the thematic categories and developed a working codebook. Next, the researchers reexamined the same transcripts using this codebook. The individually coded transcripts were then merged into a single Nvivo project to assess the level of agreement between coders. Coding comparisons yielded a moderate level of agreement (K = 0.6279) (Hallgren, 2012). At a follow-up meeting, selective coding was used to consolidate codes into categories that represent larger narrative themes (Strauss and Corbin, 1997), which were used to create a master codebook. These master codes were then employed to recode all transcripts.

Visual analysis of participant challenges with video diary

Codes were developed to reflect the challenges participants experienced when using the tablet: video quality (gaze and framing), audio quality (audibility and silence), technical difficulties, and appropriate dress for camera (Table 2). Codes were organized using MaxQDA 11 software.

Table 2.

Codes for video analysis.

No.	Code	Description
1	Gaze	Whether participant looked directly at camera (eyes visible).
2	Framing	Whether participant’s entire face was visible.
3	Audibility	Whether participant could be heard.
4	Silence	Whether participant was speaking.
5	Difficulties with technology	Whether participant had difficulty completing video entry.
6	Appearance (wardrobe)	Whether participant dressed appropriately for the camera.

Every minute of the video was identified as a segment of analysis and coded based on these criteria. The video analysis codes were identified through iterative coding of two videos each (from five participants) until consensus was met among three researchers. The remaining videos were analyzed by a single researcher.

Results

Participant demographics

Participants’ ages ranged from 67 to 81 years (M = 73, SD = 10.0). Most participants were retired (n = 11; 91%), made less than $20,000 annually (n = 7; 59%), and had at least some college or vocational training (n = 7; 59%). All participants were insured via Medicare in combination with other private health and/or drug coverage (Table 3).

Table 3.

Participant demographics.^a

No.	Demographic	Levels	f	%	Mean ± SD
1	Age	66–80	–	–	73 ± 10.0
2	Gender	Male	5	30	–
2	Gender	Female	7	70
3	Employment status b	(1) Not employed	11	92	–
3	Employment status b	(2) Part time	1	8
4	Household income	<$20,000	7	58	29,999 ± 13,484
		$20,000 to $39,999	4	33
		$40,000 to $59,999	1	8
5	Education	(1) Less than high school	2	18	–
		(2) High school graduate or General Education Development (GED)	4	33
		(3) Some college, technical, or vocational training	4	33
		(4) Bachelor’s degree	1	8
		(5) Advanced/graduate degree	1	8
6	Health insurance coverage b	(1) No insurance	0	0	–
		(2) Employer provided	2	8
		(3) Private	6	50
		(4) Medicare	8	67
		(5) Medicaid	1	8
		(6) Military issued insurance	2	17
		(6) Military issued insurance	1	8

Data collected in 2015; Item 4, household income, based 2014 income taxes.

Items with option to check all that apply.

Prior technology experience

Few participants reported owning a computer/tablet or having broadband internet access. All participants reported some use of various technologies, including television, cell phones, desktop/laptop computers, automated teller machines, and tablet computers. All participants reported using specific features of their phones and/or computers, including internet, texting, making phone calls, or sending emails (Table 4).

Table 4.

Self-reported technology use prior to video diary training.

No.	Technologies^a	Number	Percentage
1	Television	12	100
2	Cell phone	12	100
3	Computer	10	83
4	Automated Teller Machines	9	75
5	Touch screen tablet	5	42
No.	Technology features^a	Number	Percentage
1	Cell phone application	5	42
2	Texting	6	50
3	Email	4	33
4	Internet	7	58

Participants could select more than one item.

Video diary training results

Quality of video diary training

All participants reported in their follow-up interviews that the training was helpful, particularly training on using the camera, which one participant stated was a “big issue” because she was “not used to using the camera in this way.” Over half of the participants said the training qualified them to use a tablet computer, a technology only one participant had owned prior to the study. This provided the computer-based training some participants desired to acquire, but to which they did not previously have access. For example, when asked about her thoughts on the video diary training, one participant stated:

I was glad for it … because I learned something new I hadn't known before. My kids, I used to go to their house and I see people there all the time [on tablet computers], but they never say, “Let me show you how to do this [operate a tablet computer].

Other comments focused on the usefulness of the hands-on training and the step-by-step guidebook for making them more comfortable recording diaries (Table 5).

Table 5.

Sample quotes by theme.

No.	Theme	Sample quotations
1	Quality of video diary training	• “I forgot [some things], but they explained it well. I had good comfort. I'm saying in the beginning, you want to listen and ask all the pertinent questions or certainly know where to find a thing when you have a question.” • “Yeah, it [the training] was [helpful], and I'm a visual person and the fact that you all left me with the outline, you know step by step.”
2	Suggested improvements for video diary training	• “I may need you to tell me more than once. Like I said, I'm visual.” • “If I just had it a little bit longer to dissect it [the video diary process] a little bit more and to do something that ain't right and then straighten it out. I like to experiment with whatever [new processes], and then I'll know, if I do this, [then] this is what happens.”
3	Initial comfort with video diary	• “The first night I don't know what I did, I think it [the tablet] froze or did something. I couldn't [record videos] because I wasn't used to doing it. After that, I got a little bit more comfortable with it after that.” • “I had a time with that [tablet]. I don't know anything about electronics. And at my age, but I kept on messing with it and messing with it and I've kind of figured it out, but that was pretty hard.”
4	Comfort with video diary at project’s conclusion	• “It was hectic at first beginning, but then when I kept on doing it, then I got used to using it.” • “I don't know how it turned out, but I felt I was doing a lot better with my recording than I did in the beginning.”
5	Seeking assistance with video diary	• “At first … I didn't know exactly what you all were looking for, but after I talked with [a research staff member] they told me exactly [what I needed to do], so I'd had no problems.” • “I got some grands in the family that know really how to operate a lot of that stuff like that … They'll show me and I don't mind. Nothing wrong with not knowing, but not knowing and not asking somebody, that's the problem. So, if I want to know something and I think you know it, I'll ask. I'm not ashamed.”
6	Satisfaction with video diary	• “It [video diary] forced you to give a little more thought to how you resolve where you are, so you can make it a little better for yourself.” • “I learned about myself that I can do it. I don't have to worry about nobody helping me; I can do it. My nieces and nephews be saying, ‘Auntie, you can do it. You just won't try’.”

Video diary process

Initial comfort with video diary process

In their follow-up interview, half of the participants reported being comfortable managing the video diary process following the training. Two of these participants stated being comfortable because of prior experience with using technology. However, the remaining six participants reported that they were not initially comfortable. The discomfort stemmed from technical challenges related to whether they were recording and saving videos as instructed, as well as whether they were providing enough content based on our list of questions. During one of her first video diary entries, one participant stated:

I'm hoping that this recording is working this time. I'm doing my very best … Prayerfully, you're all going to hear this one.” Another participant stated, “[I was] apprehensive in the beginning because I didn't know if I recorded or if I didn’t record or what.

Three female and two male participants had to be retrained after the research team discovered there were only practice videos on the tablet when it was turned in at the end of the one-week period. Footage on these tablets showed participants trying to determine whether they were correctly recording as opposed to actually recording a video diary entry. These participants were retrained and engaged in the video diary activity for an additional week.

Seeking assistance with video diary

Despite reports of being comfortable with the video diary process after trial and error, over half of the participants sought help from someone. Often, participants reported they needed help to ensure the successful saving of their video recordings. Participants most often sought the help of a friend or family member, rather than a member of the research team. One participant stated, “Now, when I start really getting into it [the video diary process], I'd be asking my daughter. Because she's computer-savvy” (Table 5). When asked why they did not call a research staff member, several participants stated that they did not want to bother the staff, particularly “the doctor.”

Comfort with the video diary at project’s conclusion

All participants reported being comfortable engaging in the video diary process at the project’s conclusion. More specifically, half of the participants reported feeling comfortable with the video diary project immediately following the training, while the remaining participants reported that the process was initially difficult, but became easier over time. The ease was attributed to becoming familiar with and actively engaging in the video diary process. One participant commented “that [video diary] was a new experience for me. At first, I was a little leery, but once I got that hang of it, it was easier.” For some participants, the ease may have also been attributed to their retraining process.

Satisfaction with video diary project

Three participants desired to continue the process indefinitely. One participant stated, “I wish I could have kept it [recording], every day what I do, and I can show somebody else the routine.” Despite the majority of participants not desiring to continue the process, over half mentioned they enjoyed participating in the project, stating they felt they had “done something historical” or “fell in love” with the video diary process. Most participants also reported learning new skills or gaining awareness of current or future difficulties that could affect their ability to age in place. One participant said, “[I learned to] be gentle with myself and don't beat myself up because this [video diary] is a little difficult for me … I guess [I am] moving out of my comfort zone. [This study] let me know you can learn” (Table 5).

Visual quality of video diaries

Ninety-two video diaries were submitted. At least half of the participants recorded practice videos (i.e. videos where they were “testing” the technology, not actually recording data), inflating the intended number of submissions. For the purposes of this analysis, we analyzed 83 purposeful entries. On average, entries were two minutes long, ranging from 30 s to 7.2 min. Female participants averaged longer video diaries (M = 3.2 min) than male participants (M = 2.1 min).

The most commonly coded challenges were framing (face not visible), gaze (eyes not visible), and audibility (could not hear participant) (Figure 2). Participants’ faces or eyes were often not visible to the camera because the lighting in the room was low/off, or participants were looking down at their binder to make certain they were addressing all questions (see Figure 3). Some female participants had written notes prior to answering the questions and spent a large portion of their video diary entries reading these notes aloud.

Figure 2.

Technological difficulties among participants.

Figure 3.

Participant framing and gaze issue; full face and eyes not visible to camera.

Problems with the audio were often related to participants not facing the tablet’s microphone or not speaking loudly/clearly enough to be understood. Silence and technological difficulties occurred less often. For example, individuals who were unsure whether they were recording would sometimes silently stare into the camera or verbally state their uncertainty about whether they were recording. One male participant did not wear a shirt during at least one or more video diary entries. Although this attire did not preclude our research team from coding the participant’s videos, it was noted in case any discomfort was experienced among research team members who had the potential to produce coding biases.

Discussion

While video diary was a useful methodology for collecting repeated observations, we believe there are a number of methodological improvements that could make this approach more feasible. These methodological challenges ultimately affected the quality and breadth of our data. We have organized the discussion into six key methodological lessons discerned from our experience.

Methodological lessons learned

Allow adequate time for technology training

Consistent with the recent data on technology use (Owens et al., 2016; Smith, 2014b) and technology acceptance (Peek et al., 2016; Venkatesh et al., 2003), some older adults are willing to use or have used a variety of technologies, but they need to (a) clearly understand the purpose and benefit of the technology; (b) be adequately trained to use the technology; (c) perceive the technology is easy to use; and (d) have a designated period to gain experience with the technology before incorporating it into their daily lives.

Through our 90-minute training, we attempted to provide participants with support to engage in the video diary process. However, our findings show many participants, while seemingly confident during the training, were not initially comfortable recording video diaries independently. We suggest a period of at least one week following the training for participants to practice recording video diaries and to receive feedback from staff. Having this trial-and-error period may make older adults more comfortable and likely will lead to higher quality data. This “pilot study” approach was similarly suggested by Iivari et al., (2014) as it might be advantageous for detecting any “unforeseen problems” related to participants’ interpretation of the instructions and stress/frustration that participants may be experiencing, which could lead to poor execution of video recordings.

Establish multiple points of contact for technical support

While we did include contact information in each participant’s binder, some participants were not comfortable using these points of contact because participants thought the research team was probably too busy to answer “simple questions.” They instead sought help from family members, friends, and others with whom they felt more comfortable.

It would be advantageous to encourage participants to contact the research staff despite the supposed simplicity of their questions. Another alternative (particularly for participants who were recruited from the same organizations) is to encourage those participants to support one another throughout the project, which includes being open to answering questions about the video diary process. Having multiple points of contact may ensure that a participant can effectively complete the process with greater ease (Venkatesh et al., 2003). Likewise, questions asked by participants help the researchers learn how to improve the video diary process.

Provide additional camera training

All videos had one or more visual/imagery challenges. Therefore, researchers should incorporate additional camera training into their video diary training. Specifically, participants should be trained on the appropriate level of lighting and how to monitor their framing, gaze, and audio (Margolis and Pauwels, 2011; Mitchell and de Lange, 2012). We did not provide this training, which limited our opportunities for more advanced visual analysis of nonverbal data (e.g. emotion), a challenge also encountered in video-ethnographic studies (DuFon, 2002; Luff and Heath, 2012). If such training were offered, the resulting video data would likely be of higher quality (Margolis and Pauwels, 2011). We also recommend a checklist of guidelines for camera etiquette (e.g. Is your face centered on the screen? Is the room where you are recording well lit?) (DuFon, 2002; Lunch and Lunch, 2006).

Provide male participants with additional encouragement and training

There are multiple theories that suggest men and women are intrinsically different in how they express emotion (Hochschild, 1975; Kemper, 1981). These differences, which are driven by cultural and social definitions of masculinity, often influence men to be less communicative than their female counterparts (Simon and Nath, 2004). These communicative differences can also explain why women (on average) recorded longer video diaries than men. Researchers seeking to obtain thorough data from older men using this methodology should identify creative ways to encourage men to fully engage in the process. For example, engaging men in a self-reflection interview or exercise during the video diary training may help them become more comfortable (Schwalbe and Wolkomir, 2003).

Ensure that technology is suitable for the population

While our research team evaluated the video application for its potential suitability for our sample of older adults, researchers should be cognizant of potential barriers to using video diaries with populations that may have debilitating health conditions. Older adults, in general, experience age-related declines in mobility (Carmeli et al., 2003). This deterioration is more severe in older adults who have conditions such as rheumatoid arthritis (Estes et al., 2000) and Parkinson’s disease (Mazzoni et al., 2012). Similarly, older adults may also be likely to experience vision and hearing loss, (Lin et al., 2013), affecting their ability to use specific technologies. Therefore, it may be necessary to provide specialized devices such as an audio amplifier or a screen magnifier. It is also recommended that when possible, researchers should conduct some usability testing of devices prior to study implementation.

Additional study limitations

We recognize that because our follow-up interviews occurred up to 12 weeks after the end of the video diary project, participants may have been more susceptible to recall biases (as discussed in the introduction). However, we are confident that the triangulation of methods (survey, video diary, and follow-up interviews) preserves the rigor of our study design and supports our conclusions and recommendations. Furthermore, we recognize that our findings cannot be generalized to other ethnicities, a broader age range, those in other geographic locales, or other living settings.

Transferability of video diary methodology

We believe that this is a versatile methodology that can be used across disciplines to study a range of phenomena with diverse populations. For example, the process of video diary could serve as a self-reflection intervention for caregivers who are assisting older parents. While our introduction highlighted the use of successfully executed video diary studies among children, our research is one of the first to document the use of the video diary methodology among older AAs living alone. Our findings indicate that the critical elements to creating a meaningful video diary experience for the participant and researcher are having a willing participant coupled with the appropriate technology and tailored training. Therefore, future research should focus on validating the video diary methodology in non-AA older adults to study topics that can contribute meaningfully to the growing body of literature on technology use among older adults.

Conclusion

Video diary is a feasible means of collecting data from older AAs, but it does have limitations if the target population is not thoroughly trained. As technology becomes more accessible, it may be advantageous to utilize these technologies for studying aging in place. Improving older adults’ comfort with technology could increase their adoption of technologies which may be capable of assisting them with aging in place. Researchers attempting to implement innovative studies, such as those relying on a high level of nonverbal coding, might want to use the video diary methodology with consideration of the recommendations we have outlined above. By testing and refining the video diary process, researchers may be able to virtually and rapidly collect rich data that could be used to inform customized interventions to help older adults overcome barriers to aging in place. Researchers should also test the appropriateness of the method, particularly if working with minorities or groups of older adults with disabilities.

Footnotes

Authors’ note

This study was approved by the IRB at the University of South Carolina. The IRB protocol number is Pro00044481.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Funding for this research was awarded through the Office of the Provost at the University of South Carolina.

References

AARP (2010) Housing policy solutions to support aging in place: Fact sheet. Available at: www.nhc.org/media/documents/fs172-aging-in-place.pdf (accessed 1 July 2016).

Ajrouch

Antonucci

Janevic

(2001) Social networks among blacks and whites the interaction between race and age. The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences 56(2): S112–S118.

Anderson M (2015) Technology device ownership. Available at: www.pewinternet.org/2015/10/29/technology-device-ownership-2015/ (accessed 1 July 2016).

Antonucci

Akiyama

(1987) Social networks in adult life and a preliminary examination of the convoy model. Journal of Gerontology 42(5): 519–527.

Antonucci

Ajrouch

Birditt

(2013) The convoy model: Explaining social relations from a multidisciplinary perspective. The Gerontologist 54(1): 82–92.

Bartlett

(2012) Modifying the diary interview method to research the lives of people with dementia. Qualitative Health Research 22(12): 1717–1726.

Bawden D (2016) What is design for independent living? Available at: www.nahb.org/en/learn/designations/certified-aging-in-place-specialist/related-resources/what-is-design-for-independent-living.aspx (accessed 1 July 2016).

Bayer AH, Harper L and Greedwald M (2000) Fixing to stay: A national survey of housing and home modification issues. American Association of Retired Persons. Available at: https://assets.aarp.org/rgcenter/il/home_mod.pdf (accessed 1 July 2016).

Buchwald

Schantz-Laursen

Delmar

(2009) Video diary data collection in research with children: An alternative method. International Journal of Qualitative Methods 8(1): 12–20.

10.

Bunz

(2004) The computer-email-web (CEW) fluency scale-development and validation. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction 17(4): 479–506.

11.

Carmeli

Patish

Coleman

(2003) The aging hand. The Journals of Gerontology Series A: Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences 58(2): M146–M152.

12.

Carr K, Weir PL, Azar D, et al. (2013) Universal design: A step toward successful aging. Journal of Aging Research. In Press.

13.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2013) The state of aging and health in America 2013. Available at: www.cdc.gov/features/agingandhealth/state_of_aging_and_health_in_america_2013.pdf (accessed 1 July 2016).

14.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2016) Healthy places terminology. Available at: www.cdc.gov/healthyplaces/terminology.htm (accessed 1 July 2016).

15.

Cubanski J, Casillas G and Damico A (2015) Poverty among seniors: An updated analysis of national and state level poverty rates under the official and supplemental poverty measures. Available at: http://kff.org/medicare/issue-brief/poverty-among-seniors-an-updated-analysis-of-national-and-state-level-poverty-rates-under-the-official-and-supplemental-poverty-measures/ (accessed 1 July 2016).

16.

Demiris

Oliver

Giger

et al. (2009) Older adults' privacy considerations for vision based recognition methods of eldercare applications. Technology and Health Care 17(1): 41–48.

17.

DuFon

(2002) Video recording in ethnographic SLA research: Some issues of validity in data collection. Language Learning and Technology 6(1): 40–59.

18.

Estes

Bochenek

Fasler

(2000) Osteoarthritis of the fingers. Journal of Hand Therapy 13(2): 108–123.

19.

Fausset

Kelly

Rogers

et al. (2011) Challenges to aging in place: Understanding home maintenance difficulties. Journal of Housing for the Elderly 25(2): 125–141.

20.

Gallup (2014) US blacks suffer disproportionately from chronic conditions. Available at: www.gallup.com/poll/180329/blacks-suffer-disproportionately-chronic-conditions.aspx (accessed 1 July 2016).

21.

Ganz

Higashi

Rubenstein

(2005) Monitoring falls in cohort studies of community dwelling older people: Effect of the recall interval. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 53(12): 2190–2194.

22.

Hallgren

(2012) Computing inter-rater reliability for observational data: An overview and tutorial. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology 8(1): 23.

23.

Wan H, Goodkind D and Kowal PR (2016) An Aging World: 2015 International Population Reports. United States Census Bureau. Avaialble at https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Paul_Kowal2/publication/299528572_An_Aging_World_2015/links/56fd4be108ae17c8efaa1132/An-Aging-World-2015.pdf (accessed 1 July 2016).

24.

Hochschild

(1975) The sociology of feeling and emotion: Selected possibilities. Sociological Inquiry 45(2–3): 280–307.

25.

Iivari

Kinnula

Kuure

et al. (2014) Video diary as a means for data gathering with children – Encountering identities in the making. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 72(5): 507–521.

26.

Jick

(1979) Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: Triangulation in action. Administrative Science Quarterly 24(4): 602–611.

27.

Jennings T, Perry TE and Valeriani J (2014) In the best interest of the (adult) child: Ideas about kinship care of older adults. Journal of family social work 17(1): 37–50.

28.

Kahn

Antonucci

(1980) Convoys over the life course: Attachment, roles, and social support. In: Baltes

Brim

(eds) Life-Span Development and Behavior, New York: Academic Press, pp. 253–286.

29.

Kemper

(1981) Social constructionist and positivist approaches to the sociology of emotions. American Journal of Sociology 87(2): 336–362.

30.

Larkin

Jorgensen

(2016) ‘I Hate Maths: Why Do We Need to Do Maths?’ Using iPad video diaries to investigate attitudes and emotions towards mathematics in year 3 and year 6 students. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education 14(5): 925–944.

31.

Larkin K and Jorgensen R (2014) Using video diaries to record student attitudes and emotions towards mathematics in year three and year six students. Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia. Available at http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED572634.pdf (accessed 1 July 2016).

32.

Lawton

Brody

(1969) “Assessment of older people: Self-maintaining and instrumental activities of daily living”. Gerontologist 9: 179–186.

33.

Lin

Yaffe

Xia

et al. (2013) Hearing loss and cognitive decline in older adults. JAMA Internal Medicine 173(4): 293–299.

34.

Lehnert

Heider

Leicht

et al. (2011) Review: Health care utilization and costs of elderly persons with multiple chronic conditions. Medical Care Research and Review 68(4): 387–420.

35.

Lewinson

(2015) Co-constructing home with photovoice: Older residents of an assisted living facility build a Photonarrative. Qualitative Social Work 14(5): 702–720.

36.

Luff

Heath

(2012) Some ‘technical challenges’ of video analysis: Social actions, objects, material realities and the problems of perspective. Qualitative Research 12(3): 255–279.

37.

Lum

TYS

Lou

VWQ

Chen

et al. (2016) Neighborhood support and aging-in-place preference among low-income elderly Chinese city-dwellers. The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences 71(1): 98–105.

38.

Lunch

(2006) Insights into Participatory Video: A Handbook for the Field, Oxford: InsightShare.

39.

Malterud

(2001) Qualitative research: Standards, challenges, and guidelines. The Lancet 358(9280): 483–488.

40.

Margolis

Pauwels

(2011) The SAGE Handbook of Visual Research Methods, Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

41.

Mazzoni

Shabbott

Cortés

(2012) Motor control abnormalities in Parkinson’s disease. Cold Spring Harbor Perspectives in Medicine 2(6): a009282.

42.

Mitchell

de Lange

(2012) Handbook of Participatory Video, Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press.

43.

National Centre for Research Methods Working Paper (2012) An introduction to using video for research. Available at: http://eprints.ncrm.ac.uk/2259/4/NCRM_workingpaper_0312.pdf (accessed 1 July 2016).

44.

Neuwirth

Bellows

Jackson

et al. (2012) How Kaiser Permanente uses video ethnography of patients for quality improvement, such as in shaping better care transitions. Health Affairs 31(6): 1244–1250.

45.

Novek

Menec

(2014) Older adults' perceptions of age-friendly communities in Canada: A photovoice study. Ageing and Society 34(06): 1052–1072.

46.

Noyes

(2004) Video diary: A method for exploring learning dispositions. Cambridge Journal of Education 34(2): 193–209.

47.

Owens

Friedman

Brandt

et al. (2016) Digital solutions for informed decision making: An academic–community partnership for the development of a prostate cancer decision aid for African American men. American Journal of Men's Health 10(3): 207–219.

48.

Peek

STM

Luijkx

Rijnaard

et al. (2016) Older adults' reasons for using technology while aging in place. Gerontology 62(2): 226–237.

49.

Peek STM, Wouters EJM, van Hoof J, et al. (n.d.) Factors influencing acceptance of technology for aging in place: A systematic review. International Journal of Medical Informatics 83(4): 235–248.

50.

Rajadhyaksha

(2010) Conducting feasibilities in clinical trials: An investment to ensure a good study. Perspectives in Clinical Research 1(3): 106–109.

51.

Rowles

(1990) Place attachment among small town elderly. Journal of Rural Community Psychology 11(1): 103–120.

52.

Schwalbe

Wolkomir

(2003) Interviewing men. In: Holstein

Gubrium

(eds) Inside Interviewing: New Lenses, New Concerns, Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, pp. 55–71.

53.

Shelkey

Wallace

(1999) Katz index of independence in activities of daily living. Journal of Gerontological Nursing 25(3): 8–9.

54.

Simon

Nath

(2004) Gender and emotion in the United States: Do men and women differ in self-reports of feelings and expressive behavior? American Journal of Sociology 109(5): 1137–1176.

55.

Sixsmith

(2008) Ageing in place in the United Kingdom. Ageing International 32(3): 219–235.

56.

Smith A (2014a) African Americans and technology use: A demographic portrait. Pew Research Center. Available at: www.pewinternet.org/2014/01/06/african-americans-and-technology-use/ (accessed 1 July 2016).

57.

Smith A (2014b) Older adults and technology use. Pew Research Center. Available at: www.pewinternet.org/2014/04/03/older-adults-and-technology-use/ (accessed 1 July 2016).

58.

Strauss

Corbin

(1997) Grounded Theory in Practice, Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

59.

Thomas

Owens

Friedman

et al. (2013) Written and spoken narratives about health and cancer decision making: A novel application of photovoice. Health Promotion Practice 14(6): 833–840.

60.

US Department of Health Human Services (2015) A Profile of Older Americans: 2015, Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services, Administration on Aging.

61.

Venkatesh

Morris

Davis

et al. (2003) User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly 27(3): 425–478.

62.

Wiles

Leibing

Guberman

et al. (2012) The meaning of “aging in place” to older people. The Gerontologist 52(3): 357–366.

63.

Wiseman

(1980) Why older people move theoretical issues. Research on Aging 2(2): 141–154.

Feasibility of using a video diary methodology with older African Americans living alone

Abstract

Objectives

Methods

Results

Discussion

Keywords

Introduction

Aging in place

Video diary methodology

Purpose

Methods

Participant recruitment

Study activities

Phase I: Training (90 minutes)

Phase II: Implementation of video diary project

Phase III: Follow-up interviews

Data analysis

Transcript analysis of video diary implementation challenges

Visual analysis of participant challenges with video diary

Results

Participant demographics

Prior technology experience

Video diary training results

Quality of video diary training

Suggested improvement for video diary training

Video diary process

Initial comfort with video diary process

Seeking assistance with video diary

Comfort with the video diary at project’s conclusion

Satisfaction with video diary project

Visual quality of video diaries

Discussion

Methodological lessons learned

Allow adequate time for technology training

Establish multiple points of contact for technical support

Provide additional camera training

Provide male participants with additional encouragement and training

Ensure that technology is suitable for the population

Additional study limitations

Transferability of video diary methodology

Conclusion

Footnotes

Authors’ note

Declaration of conflicting interests

Funding

References