SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Türk Geriatri Dergisi / 2021 / Cilt: 24 - Sayı: 2

ADAPTATION OF THE AGING SEMANTIC DIFFERENTIAL SCALE INTO TURKISH

Melike EĞER AYDOĞMUŞ
Pages
255–263
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)

Conclusion: In conclusion, the Turkish form of the Aging Semantic Differential Scale is a valid and reliable tool.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Background: The aim of this study was to adapt the Aging Semantic Differential Scale into Turkish.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Rosencranz and McNevin (1969) first developed this scale to measure ageism and specific attitudes toward old people.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Conclusion: In conclusion, the Turkish form of the Aging Semantic Differential Scale is a valid and reliable tool.
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Özet

Background: The aim of this study was to adapt the Aging Semantic Differential Scale into Turkish. Rosencranz and McNevin (1969) first developed this scale to measure ageism and specific attitudes toward old people. Since then, this scale has been adapted into many languages, though not Turkish, and widely used in gerontology literature. Method: This current study involved 204 volunteer Turkish undergraduate students registered at Hacettepe University (139 females, mean age 20.6). They completed the questionnaires in a test-retest format in their classrooms. Results: Factor analyses revealed that the Turkish form had 26 items and 4 factors with an eigenvalue greater than 1 and explaining 46.8% of the total variance. The scale also highly correlated to two other scales on ageism, The Attitudes Toward Old People Scale and The Ageism Attitude Scale. Its internal reliability and two-week interval test-retest reliability scores were high. Conclusion: In conclusion, the Turkish form of the Aging Semantic Differential Scale is a valid and reliable tool. By adapting a well-known ageism scale into Turkish, this study makes an important contribution to Turkish gerontology literature.

🔖

Cite This Article

AYDOĞMUŞ, M. E. (2021). ADAPTATION OF THE AGING SEMANTIC DIFFERENTIAL SCALE INTO TURKISH. Türk Geriatri Dergisi, Cilt: 24 - Sayı: 2, 255–263. https://ajindex.com/articles/409064

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (14)

  1. Akdemir N, Çınar Fİ, Görgülü Ü. Perception of Age- ing and Ageism. Turkish Journal of Geriatrics 2007; 10(4): 215-222. (in Turkish)
  2. Hagestad GO, Uhlenberg P. The social separation of old and young: A root of ageism. Journal of Social Issues 2005; 61(2): 343-360. (DOI: 10.1111/j.1540- 4560.2005.00409.x)
  3. Gluth S, Ebner NC, Schmiedek F. Attitudes toward younger and older adults: The German aging se- mantic differential. International Journal of Be- havioral Development 2010; 34(2): 147-158. (DOI: 10.1177/0165025409350947)
  4. Kornadt AE, Rothermund K. Contexts of aging: As- sessing evaluative age stereotypes in different life domains. Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psy- chological Sciences and Social Sciences 2011; 66(5): 547-556. (PMID: 21571702)
  5. Kornadt AE. Do age stereotypes as social role ex- pectations for older adults influence personality de- velopment? Journal of Research in Personality 2016; 60: 51-55. (DOI: 10.1016/j.jrp.2015.11.005)
  6. Levy BR, Zonderman AB, Slade MD, et al. Memory shaped by age stereotypes over time. Journals of Gerontology: Series B. 2012; 67(4): 432-436. (PMID: 22056832)
  7. Özdemir Ö, Bilgili N. Ageism in Health Care. Gül- hane Medical Journal 2014; 56(2): 128-131. (in Turk- ish). (DOI: 10.5455/gulhane.32088)
  8. Hummert ML, Garstka TA, Shaner JL. Stereotyping of older adults: The role of target facial cues and perceiver characteristics. Psychology and Aging 1997; 12: 107–114. (PMID: 9100271)
  9. Hummert ML, Gartska TA, O’Brien LT, et al. Using the implicit association test to measure age differences in implicit social cognitions. Psychology and Aging 2002; 17: 482–495. (PMID: 12243389)
  10. Kornadt AE, Voss P, Rothermund K. Multiple stan- dards of aging: Gender-specific age stereotypes in different life domains. European Journal of Ageing 2013; 10(4): 335-344. (PMID: 28804307)
  11. Rosencranz HA, McNevin TE. A factor analysis of attitudes toward the aged. The Gerontologist 1969. (PMID: 5769675)
  12. Osgood CE, Suci, GJ & Tannenbaum PH. The Mea- surement of Meaning (No. 47). 1st edition. University of Illinois press, USA 1967
  13. Joseph FR, Marina P, Rolph EA, et al. The Role of Response Formats on Extreme Response Style: A Case of Likert-Type vs. Semantic Differential Scales. Measurement and Research Methods in Interna- tional Marketing 2011: 53-71. (DOI: 10.1108/S1474- 7979(2011)0000022006)
  14. Olaogun MO, Adedoyin RA, Ikem IC, et al. Reliabil- ity of Rating Low Back Pain with a Visual Analogue Scale and