Elderly’s Homesickness: Development of Elderly Homesickness Questionnaire

Figures & data

Table 1 Factor Loadings of EHQ

Items	Factor
	F1	F2	F3
hs1 I feel full of power when thinking about hometown	0.711
hs6 I feel warming when thinking about hometown	0.642
hs2 I often enjoy local entertainment programs in my hometown	0.585
hs16 I feel safe in my hometown	0.575
hs18 I feel the tight connection between myself and my hometown	0.563
hs4 I often pay attention to the recent situation in my hometown	0.552
hs19 I often feel lonely after leaving my hometown		0.777
hs28 I often feel depressed after leaving my hometown		0.754
hs9 I feel empty after leaving my hometown		0.731
hs7 Once I return my hometown, I may not want to come here again		0.720
hs5 I hope to return to my hometown for the rest of my life		0.560
hs10 I think about what I would do if I returned to my hometown		0.482
hs24 I miss my family and friends in my hometown			0.778
hs13 I often think of things about my hometown			0.708
hs12 I miss the lively feelings in my hometown			0.675
hs11 I will try to speak my hometown dialect to others if possible			0.631
hs25 I often go to eat local food in my hometown			0.609
hs23 I usually follow the traditional customs of my hometown			0.563
hs29 I will keep some things from my hometown as souvenirs			0.464

Notes: f1: positive contact. f2: refusal to separate. f3: homesickness behavior.

Figure 1 Standardized path coefficient of 3 factors model: f1: positive contact. f2: refusal to separate. f3: homesickness behavior.

Figure 2 Standardized path coefficient of modified 3 factors model: Correlation between the residuals of hs 19 and hs 28 was set. f1: positive contact. f2: refusal to separate. f3: homesickness behavior.

Table 2 The Measurement Invariance Test for Different Gender

Model	χ^2(s-b)	df	RMSEA	RMSEA (90% CI)	CFI	TLI	∆χ^2(s-b)	∆df	p	∆RMSEA	∆CFI	∆TLI
A Male (n = 90)	280.995	148	0.100	[0.082, 0.118]	0.861	0.839
B Female (n = 265)	310.992	148	0.065	[0.055, 0.075]	0.921	0.909
C Baseline model (N = 355)	348.094	148	0.062	[0.053, 0.070]	0.932	0.921
D Configural	591.987	296	0.075	[0.066, 0.084]	0.902	0.887
E Weak	607.562	312	0.073	[0.065, 0.082]	0.902	0.893	15.575	16	0.483	0.002	0.000	0.006
F Strong	626.631	328	0.072	[0.063, 0.080]	0.901	0.897	19.069	16	0.265	0.001	0.001	0.004
G Strict	639.917	347	0.069	[0.061, 0.078]	0.903	0.905	13.286	19	0.652	0.003	0.002	0.008

Notes: The order of comparison is C→ D→ E→ F→ G.

Table 3 The measurement invariance test for different educational attainment

Model	χ^2(s-b)	df	RMSEA	RMSEA (90% CI)	CFI	TLI	∆χ^2(s-b)	∆df	p	∆RMSEA	∆CFI	∆TLI
H Low (n = 205)	255.237	148	0.059	[0.047, 0.072]	0.927	0.916
I High (n = 150)	296.251	148	0.082	[0.068, 0.095]	0.900	0.884
C Baseline model (N = 355)	348.094	148	0.062	[0.053, 0.070]	0.932	0.921
J Configural	551.488	296	0.070	[0.061, 0.079]	0.913	0.900
K Weak	566.770	312	0.068	[0.059, 0.077]	0.914	0.905	15.282	16	0.504	0.002	0.001	0.005
L Strong	600.709	328	0.068	[0.060, 0.077]	0.908	0.904	33.939	16	0.005	0.000	0.006	0.001
M Strict	658.138	347	0.071	[0.063, 0.079]	0.895	0.896	58.029	19	0.000	0.003	0.013	0.008

Notes: The order of comparison is C→ J→ K→ L→ M.

Table 4 Criterion-related validity of EHQ

	Cronbach’s α
F1 positive contact	0.829
F2 refusal to separate	0.861
F3 homesickness behavior	0.835

Table 5 Reliability Coefficients of EHQ

	SIHM
F1 positive contact	0.509**
F2 refusal to separate	0.644**
F3 homesickness behavior	0.565**
EHQ	0.690**

Notes: **p < 0.01.

Table 6 The Fitting Indices of the Latent Profile Models for Different Numbers of Classes

Classes	AIC	BIC	Entropy	BLRT(p)
1	6778.01	6801.02	1.00	–
2	6405.92	6455.77	0.78	0.01
3	6262.88	6339.57	0.82	0.01
4	6222.75	6326.29	0.83	0.01
5	6179.29	6309.67	0.79	0.01

Figure 3 Latent profiles for different numbers of class: The distribution of scores in each group under different class solutions is described from left to right. hsf1: positive contact. hsf2: refusal to separate. hsf3: homesickness behavior.

Table 7 Comparison of Differences in Homesickness Between 4 Homesickness Classes

	Class1 (n = 64)	Class2 (n = 166)	Class3 (n = 83)	Class4 (n = 29)	Total (N = 342)
F1 positive contact	28.59±1.306^bc	23.30±2.878^acd	15.72±5.737^abd	28.24±2.149^bc	22.87±5.809
F2 refusal to separate	18.73±6.157^bcd	16.48±6.047^acd	10.13±4.333^abd	28.07±1.462^abc	16.35±7.180
F3 homesickness behavior	32.80±1.615^bc	27.72±3.459^acd	17.42±4.753^abd	34.62±0.494^bc	26.75±6.744
Homesickness	80.13±6.253^bcd	67.50±7.299^acd	43.28±9.577^abd	90.93±2.520^abc	65.97±16.512

Notes: M±SD. a: statistically significantly different from Class 1; b: statistically significantly different from Class 2, c: statistically significantly different from Class 3; d: statistically significantly different from Class 4.

Table 8 Chi-Square Test Between 4 Homesickness Classes and Demographic Information

	n	Class1	Class2	Class3	Class4	χ^2	p
Rural	179	40 (22.3%)	85 (47.5%)	35 (19.6%)	19(10.6%)	8.195	0.042
Urban	163	35 (23.3%)	70 (46.7%)	27 (18.0%)	18(12.0%)
Not living with grandchild	192	29 (15.1%)	96 (50.0%)	56 (29.2%)	11 (5.7%)	11.472	0.009
Living with grandchild	150	35 (23.3%)	70 (46.7%)	27 (18.0%)	18 (12.0%)