Journals / Türk Geriatri Dergisi / 2020 / Cilt: 23 - Sayı: 4

A VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY STUDY OF THE TURKISH VERSION OF THE AMBIVALENT AGEISM SCALE

Pages
534–545
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Except for cognitive assistance/protection, whichwas a sub-factor of benevolent ageism, no age and gender difference was found inany of the ageism scores.Conclusion: It was decided that the Turkish version of the Ambivalent AgeismScale is a valid and reliable measure of negative attitudes toward older adults.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Introduction: This study aimed to assess the psychometric properties of theTurkish version of the Ambivalent Ageism Scale, which measures 2 forms of ageism,namely benevolent and hostile ageism.Materials and Methods: Data were collected from 222 adults through an onlinesurvey.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Participants completed Turkish versions of the 13-item Ambivalent AgeismScale and the Implicit Association Test adapted for ageism.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Except for cognitive assistance/protection, whichwas a sub-factor of benevolent ageism, no age and gender difference was found inany of the ageism scores.Conclusion: It was decided that the Turkish version of the Ambivalent AgeismScale is a valid and reliable measure of negative attitudes toward older adults.
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Özet

Introduction: This study aimed to assess the psychometric properties of theTurkish version of the Ambivalent Ageism Scale, which measures 2 forms of ageism,namely benevolent and hostile ageism.Materials and Methods: Data were collected from 222 adults through an onlinesurvey. Participants completed Turkish versions of the 13-item Ambivalent AgeismScale and the Implicit Association Test adapted for ageism. Construct validity wasassessed through confirmatory factor analyses. Internal consistency and split-halfconsistency were also calculated. Criterion validity was assessed by correlatingambivalent ageism and its subscales with implicit ageism scores.Results: The results of confirmatory factor analysis of 12-items confirmed theoriginal structure by exhibiting a good fit to the data (goodness of fit index = 0.93, p<.001, comparative fit index = 0.97, and root mean square error of approximation =0.07). Internal consistency of the Ambivalent Ageism Scale and its 2 subscales werefound to be satisfactory, with Cronbach’s alpha being .89 for benevolent ageism(9 items), .79 for hostile ageism (3 items), and .89 for the total scale. Scale had ahigh split-half reliability coefficient (0.95). Implicit ageism positively correlated withambivalent ageism (total score) and both benevolent ageism and hostile ageism(.22, .21, and .16, respectively). Except for cognitive assistance/protection, whichwas a sub-factor of benevolent ageism, no age and gender difference was found inany of the ageism scores.Conclusion: It was decided that the Turkish version of the Ambivalent AgeismScale is a valid and reliable measure of negative attitudes toward older adults.

🔖

Cite This Article

ÖZTÜRK, A., TOSUN, L. P., ÖZDEMİR, G., ÇAVUŞOĞLU, M., ALPARSLAN, K., POLAT, D., KARLIDAĞ, S., KABLANOĞLU, A., KUŞDİL, M. E. (2020). A VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY STUDY OF THE TURKISH VERSION OF THE AMBIVALENT AGEISM SCALE. Türk Geriatri Dergisi, Cilt: 23 - Sayı: 4, 534–545. https://ajindex.com/articles/394757

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (13)

  1. United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. World Population Ageing 2019 [e-book] UN Publication; 2019. [Internet]. Available from: https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/publications/pdf/ageing/ WorldPopulationAgeing2019-Highlights.pdf. Accessed: 27.06.2020
  2. Turkish Statistical Institute. Older People in Statistics, 2019. News Bulletin Number: 33712; 18 March 2020. [Internet]. Available from: https://data.tuik.gov.tr/ Bulten/Index?p=Elderly-Statistics-2019-33712. Accessed: 09.11.2020
  3. Löckenhoff CE, De Fruyt F, Terracciano A, et al. Perceptions of aging across 26 cultures and their culture-level associates. Psychol Aging 2009; 24(4): 941- 54. (PMID: 20025408
  4. N, Raz. The Aging Brain: Structural Changes and Their Implications for Cognitive Aging, In: Roger A. Dixon, Lars Bäckman, Lars-Göran Nilsson (Eds). New Frontiers in Cognitive Aging. 1st edition, Oxford University Press, New York, USA 2004, pp 115-33
  5. Butler RN. Age-ism: Another form of bigotry. Gerontologist 1969; 9(4): 243-6. (PMID: 5366225)
  6. North MS, Fiske ST. An inconvenienced youth? Ageism and its potential intergenerational roots. Psychol Bull 2012; 138(5): 982-97. (PMID: 22448913
  7. Cary, LA, Chasteen AL, Remedios J. The ambivalent ageism scale: Developing and validating a scale to measure benevolent and hostile ageism. Gerontologist 2017; 57(2): e27-e36. (PMID: 27520730
  8. Cuddy AJC, Fiske ST, Glick P. The BIAS map: Behaviors from intergroup affect and stereotypes. J Pers Soc Psychol 2007;92 (4): 631-48. (PMID: 17469949
  9. North MS, Fiske ST. A prescriptive, intergenerational-tension ageism scale: Succession, identity, and consumption (SIC). Psychol Assess 2013; 25(3): 706– 13. (PMID: 23544391
  10. AL Chasteen, LA Carry, Age Stereotypes and Age Stigma: Connections to Research on Subjective Aging, In: M Diehl, H. W. Wahl (Eds). Annual Review of Gerontology and Geriatrics Subjective Aging: New Developments and Future Directions. 35th edition, Springer Publishing Co, USA 2014, pp 99–119
  11. Búgelová T, Chupková L, Kratochvílová L. Ageism at work across three generations. Cross-Cultural Studies: Education and Science 2019; 4(4): 97-106. (DOI: 10.24411/2470-1262-2019-10067)
  12. Taşdemir N. Young group identification and motives as predictors of ageism, aging anxiety, and life satisfaction. J Genet Psychol 2020; 180(4): 1-16. (PMID: 32580665
  13. Cangöz B, Altun A, Aşkar P, Baran Z, Mazman SG. Examining the visual screening patte