TY - JOUR
T1 - A systematic review of existing ageism scales
AU - Ayalon, Liat
AU - Dolberg, P.
AU - Mikulionienė, Sarmitė
AU - Perek-Białas, Jolanta
AU - Rapolienė, Gražina
AU - Stypinska, Justyna
AU - Willińska, Monika
AU - de la Fuente-Núñez, Vânia
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2019
PY - 2019/9/1
Y1 - 2019/9/1
N2 - Ageism has been shown to have a negative impact on older people's health and wellbeing. Though multiple scales are currently being used to measure this increasingly important issue, syntheses of the psychometric properties of these scales are unavailable. This means that existing estimates of ageism prevalence may not be accurate. We conducted a systematic review aimed at identifying available ageism scales and evaluating their scope and psychometric properties. A comprehensive search strategy was used across fourteen different databases, including PubMed and CINAHL. Independent reviewers extracted data and appraised risk of bias following the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) guidelines. Of the 29,664 records identified, 106 studies, assessing 11 explicit scales of ageism, were eligible for inclusion. Only one scale, the ‘Expectations Regarding Aging’ met minimum requirements for psychometric validation (i.e., adequate content validity, structural validity and internal consistency). Still, this scale only assesses the ‘stereotype’ dimension of ageism, thus failing to evaluate the other two ageism dimensions (prejudice and discrimination). This paper highlights the need to develop and validate a scale that accounts for the multidimensional nature of ageism. Having a scale that can accurately measure ageism prevalence is key in a time of increasing and rapid population ageing, where the magnitude of this phenomenon may be increasing.
AB - Ageism has been shown to have a negative impact on older people's health and wellbeing. Though multiple scales are currently being used to measure this increasingly important issue, syntheses of the psychometric properties of these scales are unavailable. This means that existing estimates of ageism prevalence may not be accurate. We conducted a systematic review aimed at identifying available ageism scales and evaluating their scope and psychometric properties. A comprehensive search strategy was used across fourteen different databases, including PubMed and CINAHL. Independent reviewers extracted data and appraised risk of bias following the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) guidelines. Of the 29,664 records identified, 106 studies, assessing 11 explicit scales of ageism, were eligible for inclusion. Only one scale, the ‘Expectations Regarding Aging’ met minimum requirements for psychometric validation (i.e., adequate content validity, structural validity and internal consistency). Still, this scale only assesses the ‘stereotype’ dimension of ageism, thus failing to evaluate the other two ageism dimensions (prejudice and discrimination). This paper highlights the need to develop and validate a scale that accounts for the multidimensional nature of ageism. Having a scale that can accurately measure ageism prevalence is key in a time of increasing and rapid population ageing, where the magnitude of this phenomenon may be increasing.
KW - Ageism
KW - Discrimination
KW - Prejudice
KW - Scale
KW - Stereotype
KW - Systematic review
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85070731418&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.arr.2019.100919
DO - 10.1016/j.arr.2019.100919
M3 - Review article
C2 - 31228647
AN - SCOPUS:85070731418
SN - 1568-1637
VL - 54
JO - Ageing Research Reviews
JF - Ageing Research Reviews
M1 - 100919
ER -