This article describes a multimethod intrinsic case study of environmental fit—as conceptualized by Lawton—in an adult day facility through assessing the relationship between competence and interpreted place rules as an indicator of consensually understood environmental press and observable affect as a measurable outcome. This research study of an adult day care serving people experiencing dementia suggests that Canter's concept of place rules may be conceptualized as a consensual aspect of environmental press, interpreted largely through the observation of patterns of activity within a given physical setting. The congruence between the purposes that underlie these rules and those sought by participants is assessed through the aggregation of affect observations. The findings suggest that the degree of fit between the participants and their environmental milieu varies for each of four distinct groupings of participants. Aspects of the physical setting and its use associated with the assessed misfit are discussed.
Alexander, C. (1964). Notes on the synthesis of form. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
2.
Barker, R. (1968). Ecological psychology: Concepts and methods for studying the environment for human behavior. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
3.
Bell, P., & Smith, J. (1997). A behavioral mapping method for assessing efficacy of change on special care units. American Journal of Alzheimer's Disease, 12, 184-189.
4.
Brody, E., Kleban, M., Lawton, M. P., & Moss, M. (1971). Excess disabilities of mentally impaired aged: Impact of individualized treatment. The Gerontologist, 11, 124-133.
5.
Canter, D. V. (1985). Intention, meaning, and structure: Social action in its physical context. In M. Von Cranach, G. Ginsberg, & M. Brenner (Eds.), Discovery strategies in the psychology of action (pp. 171-186). London: Academic Press.
6.
Canter, D. V. (1991). Understanding, assessing, and acting in places: Is an integrative framework possible? In T. Garling& G. Evans (Eds.), Environment, cognition, and action (pp. 191-209). New York: Oxford University Press.
7.
Canter, D. V., & King, K. (1989). Ward development project. In D. Canter (Ed.), Psychology in action (pp. 157-173). Hanover, NH: Dartmouth University Press.
8.
Cohen-Mansfield, J., Marx, M., Werner, P., & Freedman, L. (1992). Temporal patterns of agitated nursing home residents. International Psychogeriatrics, 4, 197-206.
9.
Diaz Moore, K. (2000). The hidden program of adult day care for the cognitively impaired: A comparative case study into the negotiation of place. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee.
10.
Donald, I., & Canter, D. V. (1992). Intentionality and fatality during the King's Cross underground fire. European Journal of Social Psychology, 22, 203-218.
11.
Folstein, M., Folstein, S., & Mc Hugh, P. (1975). Mini-mental state: Apractical method for grading cognitive state of patients for the clinician. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 12, 189-198.
12.
Goffman, E. (1961). Asylums. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.
13.
Ittleson, W., Rivlin, L., & Proshansky, H. (1970). An introduction to environmental psychology. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
14.
Kahana, E. (1975). A congruence model of person-environment interaction. In P. Windley, T. Byerts, & E. Ernst (Eds.), Theoretical development in environments and aging (pp. 181-214). Washington, DC: Gerontological Society,
15.
Kaplan, S. (1983). A model of person-environment compatibility. Environment & Behavior, 15, 311-332.
16.
Kleemeier, R. (1959). Behavior and the organization of the bodily and external environment. In J. Birren (Ed.), Handbookof aging and the individual. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
17.
Lasch, E., Burnham, J., & Lee, J. (1995). The Alzheimer functional status instrument: An instrument to assess rehabilitation strategies for Alzheimer's patients. American Journal of Alzheimer's Disease, 10, 17-25.
18.
Lawton, M. P. (1986). Environment and aging. Albany, NY: Center for the Study of Aging.
19.
Lawton, M. P. (1989). Behavior-relevant ecological factors. In K. Schaie & K. Schooler (Eds.), Social structure and aging: Psychological processes (pp. 57-78). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
20.
Lawton, M. P. (1994). Quality of life in Alzheimer's disease. Alzheimer's Disease and Associated Disorders, 8, 138-150.
21.
Lawton, M. P., Moss, M., Fulcomer, M., & Kleban, M. (1982). A research and service-oriented multilevel assessment instrument. Journal of Gerontology, 37, 91-99.
22.
Lawton, M. P., & Nahemow, L. (1973). Ecology and the aging process. In C. Eisdorfer & M. P. Lawton (Eds.), Psychology of adult development and aging (pp. 619-674). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
23.
Lawton, M. P., Van Haitsma, K., & Klapper, J. (1996). Observed affect in nursing home residents with Alzheimer's disease. Journal of Gerontology, 51B (1), 3-14.
24.
Lawton, M. P., Van Haitsma, K., Perkinson, M., & Ruckdeschel, K. (1999). Observed affect and quality of life in dementia: Further affirmations and problems. Journal of Mental Health & Aging, 5, 69-81.
25.
Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science. New York: Harper & Row.
26.
Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
27.
Michelson, W. (1976). Man and his urban environment: A sociological approach. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
28.
Miles, M., & Huberman, M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
29.
Murray, H. (1938). Explorations in personality. New York: Oxford University Press.
30.
Nahemow, L. (2000). The ecological theory of aging: Powell Lawton's legacy. In R. Rubinstein, M. Moss, & M. Kleban (Eds.), The many dimensions of aging (pp. 22-40). New York: Springer.
31.
Seligman, M. (1975). Helplessness. New York: Freeman.
32.
Sloane, P., Mitchell, C. M., Weisman, G. D., Zimmerman, S., Long Foley, K., Lynn, M., et al. (2002). The Therapeutic Environment Screening Survey for Nursing Homes (TESS-NH): An observational instrument for assessing the physical environment of institutional settings for persons with dementia. Journals of Gerontology: Series B: Psychological Sciences & Social Sciences, 57B (2): S69-S78.
33.
Sommer, B., & Sommer, R. (1997). A practical guide to behavioral research: Tools and techniques (4th ed.). London: Oxford University Press.
34.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
35.
Weisman, G. D., Lawton, M. P., Sloane, P., Calkins, M., & Norris-Baker, C. (1996). The professional environmental assessment protocol. Milwaukee: University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee.
36.
White, R. (1959). Motivation reconsidered: The concept of competence. Psychological Review, 66, 297-333.
37.
Wicker, A., & August, R. (2000). Working lives in context: Engaging the views of participants and analysts. In W. B. Walsh, K. H. Craik,& R. H. Price (Eds.), Person-environment psychology: New directions and perspectives (2nd ed.; pp. 197-232). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
38.
Wood, D., & Beck, R. (1994). Home rules. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
39.
Woodward, T., & Iverson, G. (1999). The behavioral assessment scale: Internal consistency and factor structure for an elderly psychiatric population. Applied Neuropsychology, 6, 170-177.
