Psychometric Properties of Instruments Assessing Ageism: A Systematic Review

IF 1.6 4区医学 Q4 GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY

International Journal of Older People Nursing Pub Date : 2025-03-31 DOI:10.1111/opn.70023

Chien-Chih Liu, Yi-Jung Chen, Xavier C. C. Fung, Iqbal Pramukti, Chieh-hsiu Liu, Li-Fan Liu, Mark D. Griffiths, Yi-Ching Yang, Chung-Ying Lin

{"title":"Psychometric Properties of Instruments Assessing Ageism: A Systematic Review","authors":"Chien-Chih Liu, Yi-Jung Chen, Xavier C. C. Fung, Iqbal Pramukti, Chieh-hsiu Liu, Li-Fan Liu, Mark D. Griffiths, Yi-Ching Yang, Chung-Ying Lin","doi":"10.1111/opn.70023","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Introduction</h3>\n \n <p>The global population is experiencing a significant increase in the number of older people, highlighting the need to maintain both physical and mental health among this cohort and to promote healthy ageing. One critical area that has been insufficiently explored is the prevalence and scope of ageism and its assessment. Therefore, the present review evaluated the psychometric properties of instruments designed to assess ageism against older people.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>To locate relevant instruments, a search was conducted using seven databases comprising <i>MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, Web of Science, ScienceDirect</i> and <i>Scopus</i>. The review utilised the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist to assess the methodological quality of the studies identified, ensuring a thorough evaluation of relevant literature.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>From an initial pool of 338,180 outputs, 20 studies were deemed suitable for inclusion. These studies addressed various aspects of ageism, with eight focusing on self-directed ageism and 12 on attitudes towards older individuals. The review found that while 18 studies tested internal consistency, only three assessed cross-cultural validity. None of the studies achieved a high methodological quality rating concerning content validity based on the COSMIN criteria.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>These findings suggest a significant gap in the development of reliable and comprehensive psychometric instruments for assessing ageism, indicating a need for further refinement of these instruments. Implications for Practice: This systematic review equips healthcare policymakers with evidence to advance the development of more robust ageism measurement tools. Additionally, the results underscore the need for researchers to conduct more thorough validation and evaluation of ageism instruments that address its multidimensional nature, thereby enhancing the quality of future gerontological research.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Implications for Practice</h3>\n \n <p>This systematic review equips healthcare policymakers with evidence to advance the development of more robust ageism measurement tools. Additionally, the results underscore the need for researchers to conduct more thorough validation and evaluation of ageism instruments that address its multidimensional nature, thereby enhancing the quality of future gerontological research.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":48651,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Older People Nursing","volume":"20 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Older People Nursing","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/opn.70023","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction

The global population is experiencing a significant increase in the number of older people, highlighting the need to maintain both physical and mental health among this cohort and to promote healthy ageing. One critical area that has been insufficiently explored is the prevalence and scope of ageism and its assessment. Therefore, the present review evaluated the psychometric properties of instruments designed to assess ageism against older people.

Methods

To locate relevant instruments, a search was conducted using seven databases comprising MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, Web of Science, ScienceDirect and Scopus. The review utilised the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist to assess the methodological quality of the studies identified, ensuring a thorough evaluation of relevant literature.

Results

From an initial pool of 338,180 outputs, 20 studies were deemed suitable for inclusion. These studies addressed various aspects of ageism, with eight focusing on self-directed ageism and 12 on attitudes towards older individuals. The review found that while 18 studies tested internal consistency, only three assessed cross-cultural validity. None of the studies achieved a high methodological quality rating concerning content validity based on the COSMIN criteria.

Conclusions

These findings suggest a significant gap in the development of reliable and comprehensive psychometric instruments for assessing ageism, indicating a need for further refinement of these instruments. Implications for Practice: This systematic review equips healthcare policymakers with evidence to advance the development of more robust ageism measurement tools. Additionally, the results underscore the need for researchers to conduct more thorough validation and evaluation of ageism instruments that address its multidimensional nature, thereby enhancing the quality of future gerontological research.

Implications for Practice

This systematic review equips healthcare policymakers with evidence to advance the development of more robust ageism measurement tools. Additionally, the results underscore the need for researchers to conduct more thorough validation and evaluation of ageism instruments that address its multidimensional nature, thereby enhancing the quality of future gerontological research.

查看原文本刊更多论文

年龄歧视评估工具的心理测量特性：系统回顾

全球人口中老年人的数量正在显著增加，这突出表明需要保持这一群体的身心健康，并促进健康老龄化。尚未充分探讨的一个关键领域是年龄歧视的普遍程度和范围及其评估。因此，本综述评估了设计用于评估针对老年人的年龄歧视的工具的心理测量特性。方法利用MEDLINE、PubMed、Embase、PsycINFO、Web of Science、ScienceDirect和Scopus等7个数据库进行检索，定位相关仪器。本次审查采用了基于共识的健康状况测量工具选择标准（COSMIN）检查清单，以评估所确定研究的方法学质量，确保对相关文献进行全面评估。从最初的338,180个输出中，有20个研究被认为适合纳入。这些研究涉及年龄歧视的各个方面，其中8项研究侧重于自我导向的年龄歧视，12项研究侧重于对老年人的态度。回顾发现，虽然有18项研究测试了内部一致性，但只有3项研究评估了跨文化有效性。根据COSMIN标准，没有一项研究在内容效度方面获得高方法学质量评级。这些发现表明，在开发可靠和全面的评估年龄歧视的心理测量工具方面存在重大差距，表明这些工具需要进一步完善。实践意义：本系统综述为医疗保健政策制定者提供了证据，以促进更强大的年龄歧视测量工具的发展。此外，研究结果强调，研究人员需要对年龄歧视工具进行更彻底的验证和评估，以解决其多维性，从而提高未来老年学研究的质量。这一系统综述为医疗保健政策制定者提供了证据，以推动更强大的年龄歧视测量工具的发展。此外，研究结果强调，研究人员需要对年龄歧视工具进行更彻底的验证和评估，以解决其多维性，从而提高未来老年学研究的质量。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

International Journal of Older People Nursing Nursing-Gerontology

CiteScore

3.60

自引率

9.10%

发文量

期刊介绍： International Journal of Older People Nursing welcomes scholarly papers on all aspects of older people nursing including research, practice, education, management, and policy. We publish manuscripts that further scholarly inquiry and improve practice through innovation and creativity in all aspects of gerontological nursing. We encourage submission of integrative and systematic reviews; original quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods research; secondary analyses of existing data; historical works; theoretical and conceptual analyses; evidence based practice projects and other practice improvement reports; and policy analyses. All submissions must reflect consideration of IJOPN''s international readership and include explicit perspective on gerontological nursing. We particularly welcome submissions from regions of the world underrepresented in the gerontological nursing literature and from settings and situations not typically addressed in that literature. Editorial perspectives are published in each issue. Editorial perspectives are submitted by invitation only.