WHAT IS AGEISM?: A REVIEW AND ANALYTICAL CRITIQUE OF CURRENT MEASURES OF AGEISM
WHAT IS AGEISM?: A REVIEW AND ANALYTICAL CRITIQUE OF CURRENT MEASURES OF AGEISM
复制标题
DOI：
10.1093/geroni/igz038.3336
复制
发表时间：
2019-11-08
影响因子：
7
通讯作者：
Shook N
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Lee J;Wilson J;Shook N
在过去的二十年里，美国人口迅速老龄化（美国人口普查局，2018年），对老年人的偏见态度（即，年龄歧视）和这种态度的影响更相关。了解年龄歧视是必要的，以改变制度化的信念，减少对老年人的偏见。然而，这需要有有效和可靠的老龄歧视措施。本研究的目的是：（1）对现有的三种年龄歧视自我报告措施（即，Fabroni年龄歧视量表[FSA];与老年人相关评估[ROPE];矛盾年龄歧视量表[AAS]）;和（2）检查这些年龄歧视测量的信度和收敛效度。共有473名本科生在线完成了FSA，ROPE和AAS。结果表明，FSA，ROPE的分量表（即，积极和消极的年龄歧视），以及AAS的分量表（即，仁慈和敌对的年龄歧视）一般是积极的相互关联，有两个例外。首先，积极的年龄歧视与FSA呈负相关。第二，积极的年龄歧视与敌对的年龄歧视没有显著相关。重要的是，测量之间的相关性的幅度存在显著的变化，因为相关性的幅度大多是弱到中等的（rs范围从-0.13到0.65）。这些关联低于收敛效度的推荐阈值r = ±.70（Carlson & Herdman，2012），表明当前年龄歧视措施存在概念问题，因为它们似乎没有反映一个共同的结构，这对未来的理论和实证工作具有实际意义。
The past two decades have been marked by a rapidly aging population in the U.S. (U.S. Census Bureau, 2018), making prejudicial attitudes toward older adults (i.e., ageism) and the impact of such attitudes more relevant. Understanding ageism is necessary to change institutionalized beliefs and reduce prejudice toward older adults. However, it requires the availability of valid and reliable measures of ageism. The purpose of the present research was to: (1) provide an analytical review of three existing self-report measures of ageism (i.e., Fabroni Scale of Ageism [FSA]; Relating to Older People Evaluation [ROPE]; Ambivalent Ageism Scale [AAS]); and (2) examine the reliability and convergent validity of these ageism measures. A total of 473 undergraduate students completed the FSA, ROPE, and AAS online. The results indicated that the FSA, subscales of the ROPE (i.e., positive and negative ageism), and subscales of the AAS (i.e., benevolent and hostile ageism) were generally positively associated with one another, with two exceptions. First, positive ageism was negatively correlated with the FSA. Second, positive ageism was not significantly correlated with hostile ageism. Importantly, there was notable variability in the magnitude of the correlations between the measures, as correlations were mostly weak to moderate in magnitude (rs ranged from -.13 to .65). These associations are below the recommended threshold of r = ±.70 for convergent validity (Carlson & Herdman, 2012), suggesting conceptual problems with current ageism measures as they do not appear to reflect a common construct, which has practical implications for future theoretical and empirical work.