{"title":"退休资源量表评估、与退休满意度的关系、调整与元分析回顾","authors":"R. Hanák, L. Pitel","doi":"10.1134/S2079057022030067","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The Retirement Resources Inventory (RRI) created by C.S. Leung and L.K. Earl is a frequently used self-reported scale for measuring retirement resources. Since it was introduced, 10 scientific papers have been published using the full set of questions and 3 papers using only some of the questions. These have produced ambiguous and inconsistent results with considerable differences in almost all the parameters measured between countries. This paper aims to conduct a systematic review of the scale’s psychometric characteristics and examine the meta-analytic relationship to retirement adjustment, satisfaction and validation for the Slovak population. Instead of the proposed 6-factor structure, we found that different scholars had identified from 3 to 10 factors, and using a Slovak sample we found 4 factors. Internal reliability measured by Cronbach’s alpha showed high levels in all the studies (0.85–0.93). Meta-analytical relationships with RAI showed a strong random effect, <i>r</i> = 0.6 CI [0.35, 0.85], with the RSI, <i>r</i> = 0.509 CI [0.46, 0.56]. But the mean score for the specific subscales differed significantly from the original study in each of the countries it was tested in. Before the RRI is used to measure retirement resources, it should be validated on large samples and adjusted to national specifications to confirm/reject it as a psychometrically valid measure.</p>","PeriodicalId":44756,"journal":{"name":"Advances in Gerontology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Retirement Resources Inventory—Scale Assessment, Relationship to Retirement Satisfaction, Adjustment and a Meta-Analytical Review\",\"authors\":\"R. Hanák, L. Pitel\",\"doi\":\"10.1134/S2079057022030067\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>The Retirement Resources Inventory (RRI) created by C.S. Leung and L.K. Earl is a frequently used self-reported scale for measuring retirement resources. Since it was introduced, 10 scientific papers have been published using the full set of questions and 3 papers using only some of the questions. These have produced ambiguous and inconsistent results with considerable differences in almost all the parameters measured between countries. This paper aims to conduct a systematic review of the scale’s psychometric characteristics and examine the meta-analytic relationship to retirement adjustment, satisfaction and validation for the Slovak population. Instead of the proposed 6-factor structure, we found that different scholars had identified from 3 to 10 factors, and using a Slovak sample we found 4 factors. Internal reliability measured by Cronbach’s alpha showed high levels in all the studies (0.85–0.93). Meta-analytical relationships with RAI showed a strong random effect, <i>r</i> = 0.6 CI [0.35, 0.85], with the RSI, <i>r</i> = 0.509 CI [0.46, 0.56]. But the mean score for the specific subscales differed significantly from the original study in each of the countries it was tested in. Before the RRI is used to measure retirement resources, it should be validated on large samples and adjusted to national specifications to confirm/reject it as a psychometrically valid measure.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":44756,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Advances in Gerontology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-09-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Advances in Gerontology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1134/S2079057022030067\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Advances in Gerontology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1134/S2079057022030067","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Retirement Resources Inventory—Scale Assessment, Relationship to Retirement Satisfaction, Adjustment and a Meta-Analytical Review
The Retirement Resources Inventory (RRI) created by C.S. Leung and L.K. Earl is a frequently used self-reported scale for measuring retirement resources. Since it was introduced, 10 scientific papers have been published using the full set of questions and 3 papers using only some of the questions. These have produced ambiguous and inconsistent results with considerable differences in almost all the parameters measured between countries. This paper aims to conduct a systematic review of the scale’s psychometric characteristics and examine the meta-analytic relationship to retirement adjustment, satisfaction and validation for the Slovak population. Instead of the proposed 6-factor structure, we found that different scholars had identified from 3 to 10 factors, and using a Slovak sample we found 4 factors. Internal reliability measured by Cronbach’s alpha showed high levels in all the studies (0.85–0.93). Meta-analytical relationships with RAI showed a strong random effect, r = 0.6 CI [0.35, 0.85], with the RSI, r = 0.509 CI [0.46, 0.56]. But the mean score for the specific subscales differed significantly from the original study in each of the countries it was tested in. Before the RRI is used to measure retirement resources, it should be validated on large samples and adjusted to national specifications to confirm/reject it as a psychometrically valid measure.
期刊介绍:
Advances in Gerontology focuses on biomedical aspects of aging. The journal also publishes original articles and reviews on progress in the following research areas: demography of aging; molecular and physiological mechanisms of aging, clinical gerontology and geriatrics, prevention of premature aging, medicosocial aspects of gerontology, and behavior and psychology of the elderly.