Ethics statement

Ethical approval for the ELSA wave 12 cognitive testing was given by the National Centre for Social Research Ethics Committee (approval number P18148). Recruitment started on 21st of October 2024 until 1st of November, and fieldwork ran from 5th to 15th of November 2024. Participants gave their verbal consent to take part in the study before taking part, consent was documented in a spreadsheet, furthermore during the interview they were asked if they are happy to continue with the cognitive interview and whether also agree to be recorded. The consent was witnessed by the interviewer.

Expert panel review.

The questions were meticulously reviewed and refined, with new ones developed to ensure their suitability for administration to older adults. This process involved consultation with experts in survey methods, climate change, gerontology, aging, social policy, and epidemiology. We carefully examined individual questions from existing surveys, selecting those most relevant to older individuals. The selected questions underwent thorough discussion, with modifications made to align with the requirements for administration in aging studies. The questionnaire was specifically designed to address key challenges older adults face in relation to climate change, including their increased vulnerability to extreme weather events, preparedness for climate-related risks, and engagement in mitigation and adaptation efforts. Multiple iterations were conducted to achieve a consensus on a finalized set of questions (Fig 1A and 1B).

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Fig 1. ClimateMind50+ questionnaire.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000568.g001

The questionnaire and results of the cognitive test

The ClimateMind50+ questionnaire is depicted in Fig 1A and 1B. The results of the cognitive interviews summarised in Table 1. The short introduction to the module sets the context for the subsequent questions by briefly explaining the concept of climate change as long-term changes in temperatures and weather patterns, primarily caused by human activities such as burning fossil fuels. This introduction provides a simple and accessible explanation to ensure all respondents, regardless of their prior knowledge, understand the scope of the topic being addressed. The cognitive testing revealed that the introduction was well understood, generally aligning with what people were thinking of when considering climate change.

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 1. Cognitive interviews results.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000568.t001

Question 1 of the survey focuses on how participants would rate their knowledge of climate change and is designed to evaluate their self-perceived understanding of the topic. This question helps identify the level of confidence respondents have in their knowledge, which is essential for tailoring educational interventions and communication strategies to address any gaps or misconceptions. The cognitive testing revealed that this question was well understood, and no changes were needed.

Question 2 assesses participants’ levels of worry about the impact of climate change for them personally, their family and friends, and future generations. It aims to capture the recognition of its potential risks and consequences on themselves and their social circles. Question 3 then seeks to assess perceptions of risk and concern regarding specific climate-related events that may directly impact participants’ lives and local environments. The question asks participants how worried they are about the occurrence of various extreme weather events where they currently live, including extended droughts, severe flooding, extreme heat, storms with strong winds, hail or snow, wildfires (and related smoke or pollution), and prolonged or extremely cold winters. Questions 2 and 3 were assessed on a 4 response categories during the cognitive testing with responses as 1. Very worried, 2. Somewhat worried, 3. Not very worried and 4. Not worried at all. There were a number of mentions that “Somewhat worried” and “Not very worried” were similar, we therefore removed the option “Not very worried” and kept the questions with 3 response categories instead. Furthermore, the wording of question 3 was changed to “How worried are you that any of the following extreme weather events might happen where you live right now?” as some respondents appeared to be thinking about these extreme events more generally as opposed to where they live now.

Question 4 asks participants to consider their preparedness for extreme weather events by selecting applicable statements regarding their reliance on support systems, the safety of their home, and their level of personal preparation. The options include relying on help from family, friends, neighbours, or the local council; confidence in the safety and comfort of their home; acknowledging a lack of preparation; or feeling that no preparation is necessary. This question helps to assess participants’ perceived readiness for extreme weather events and highlights any potential gaps in resources, awareness, or support networks that could impact their resilience. Following cognitive testing, the response option “I can use nearby public spaces” was rephrased to “I can rely on the help of the local council”, as respondents found the former to be unclear. In countries where local councils do not exist, this response can be adapted to use contextually relevant wording to ensure clarity and applicability.

Question 5 is designed to assess respondents’ environmentally sustainable lifestyle practices and the changes they have made due to their concern for the environment. It consists of a list of specific actions that individuals may have taken to reduce their environmental impact, with a simple “Yes” or “No” response for each item. Respondents are also provided an open-ended section to describe other environmentally sustainable actions they may have taken, allowing for a broader understanding of individual contributions to environmental sustainability. This question helps capture both specific and diverse behaviours linked to environmental concern. This question required the most substantial revisions following cognitive testing to enhance its clarity and usability. Initially, the response categories measured the frequency of actions taken, but this was found to be overly complex and potentially confusing for respondents. Therefore we further consulted with experts who suggested modifying the responses so that information on how often they had done each of the changes, and at what cost to them. The examples provided for each action were also significantly reduced, as the initial list was judged to be excessive and overwhelming, detracting from the question’s focus. Furthermore, the timeframe for considering these actions was adjusted from “in the past two years” to “ever,” as respondents indicated that a longer timeframe was more appropriate for capturing meaningful changes in behaviour, particularly among older populations. These changes collectively aimed to streamline the question and ensuring it effectively captured the intended data.

Question 6 aims to explore respondents’ engagement in various climate-related actions, reflecting their level of involvement and commitment to addressing environmental issues. Respondents are asked to select all applicable actions from a predefined list. Additionally, respondents can specify other climate-related activities they have undertaken in an open-ended section or indicate that they have not participated in any of the listed actions. During cognitive testing, this question was well understood by respondents; however, as in Question 5, the specified timeframe was dropped and replaced with “ever” to better capture the breadth of climate actions over a longer period of time. Furthermore, it was suggested that responses would be assessed only on a Yes/No scale rather than Always/Whenever possible/Never. Lastly, it was recommended to add a couple of examples about activities undertaken to reduce waste.

Overall, cognitive testing provided key insights that enhanced the clarity and usability of the tool, such as refining response categories, simplifying complex wording, and adjusting timeframes to better reflect the experiences of older adults.

Strengths and limitations

The ClimateMind50+ questionnaire presents several strengths. One key strength is its focus on an underrepresented population-older adults-who face unique vulnerabilities and challenges related to climate change but are often excluded from climate-related research. By specifically tailoring the questionnaire for individuals aged 50 and above, the questionnaire ensures that their perspectives, concerns, and adaptive capacities are adequately captured. Additionally, the questionnaire comprehensively addresses multiple dimensions of climate change engagement, including knowledge, worries, preparedness, sustainable behaviours, and involvement in climate action. Our cognitive testing yielded valuable insights, showing that cognitive interviews are a useful tool for uncovering challenges such as clarity, understanding, ambiguity, memory load, timeframe considerations, missing response options, misleading instructions, and the overall relevance of questionnaire items [24].

There are some limitations to this work. The sample size for cognitive testing was relatively small (n = 15), which, while sufficient for identifying comprehension issues and refining the questionnaire, does not provide a statistically representative validation of the tool. Instead, the sample was intentionally selected to reflect diverse demographic and experiential backgrounds rather than broad representativeness. It is our hope that by administering the questionnaire in the main ELSA sample, as well as to larger and more diverse samples, will further validate the questionnaire and assess its applicability across different cultural and socioeconomic contexts. Additionally, the study relies on self-reported measures, which may be subject to recall or social desirability biases, particularly for climate-related behaviours and preparedness. However, the structured format of the questionnaire helps to minimize these biases by providing clear and standardized response options.