Attitude Toward Own Aging: Age Invariance and Construct Validity Across Middle-Aged, Young-Old, and Old-Old Adults

Article
  • 44 Downloads

Abstract

The Attitude Toward Own Aging (ATOA) Scale assesses an individual’s evaluation of their own aging, and has been widely used in the field of subjective aging literature. The present study examined whether the ATOA scale measures the same construct across middle-aged (40–60), young-old (61–74), and old-old adults (ages 75 or older) and also evaluated the construct validity of the ATOA construct in relation to measures of subjective well-being. Data drawn from the 2008 wave of the German Aging Survey (DEAS; n = 6091) were used. ATOA was assessed by the ATOA subscale of the Philadelphia Geriatric Center Morale Scale (PGCMS), and subjective well-being was assessed with the Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS) and the Positive and Negative Affect Scale (PANAS). Confirmatory factor analysis revealed that the model fit of the one-factor model consisting of four items fits the data well. Multi-group invariance analyses provide evidence for configural and metric invariance of the ATOA scale across the age groups, but not for scalar invariance. Additional analysis assessing construct validity indicated that the ATOA items exhibited convergent validity. The findings support the utility of the 4-item scale when examining age group differences of ATOA across a wide age range and that ATOA is distinct from measures of subjective well-being.

Keywords

Attitude Toward Own Aging Self-perceptions of aging Subjective aging Measurement invariance Construct validity 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the staff of German Centre of Gerontology for providing the dataset.

References

  1. Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 445–455). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  2. Busseri, M. A., & Sadava, S. W. (2011). A review of the tripartite structure of subjective well-being, implications for conceptualization, operationalization, and synthesis. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 15, 290–314.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868310391271.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Charles, S. T., Reynolds, C. A., & Gatz, M. (2001). Age-related differences and changes in positive and negative affect over 23 years. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 136–151.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.80.1.136CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Chen, F. F., Sousa, K. H., & West, S. G. (2005). Teacher’s corner: Testing measurement invariance of second-order factor models. Structural Equation Modeling, 12, 471–492.  https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328007sem1203_7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 9, 233–255.  https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328007sem0902_5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Diehl, M. K., & Wahl, H. W. (2010). Awareness of age-related change: Examination of a (mostly) unexplored concept. Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 65, 340–350.  https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/gbp110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Diehl, M., Wahl, H.-W., Barrett, A. E., Brothers, A. F., Miche, M., Montepare, J. M., et al. (2014). Awareness of aging: Theoretical considerations on an emerging concept. Developmental Review, 34, 93–113.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2014.01.001.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. Diener, E. (1984). Subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 95, 542–575.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.95.3.542.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Engstler, H., & Schmiade, N. (2013). The German Aging Survey (DEAS)—A longitudinal and time-series study of people in the second half of life. Schmollers Jahrbuch, 133, 97–107.  https://doi.org/10.3790/schm.133.1.97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. German Centre of Gerontology (2008). German Ageing Survey [Data file and code book]. Retrieved from http://www.dza.de/en/research/deas.html.
  11. Horn, J. L., & McArdle, J. J. (1992). A practical and theoretical guide to measurement invariance in aging research. Experimental Aging Research, 18, 117–144.  https://doi.org/10.1080/03610739208253916.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Hu, L.-T., & Bentler, P. M. (1998). Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychological Methods, 3, 424–453.  https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989x.3.4.424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hu, L.-T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6, 1–55.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Isaacowitz, D. M., & Smith, J. (2003). Positive and negative affect in very old age. The Journals of Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 58, 143–152.  https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/58.3.p143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kessler, E.-M., & Staudinger, U. M. (2009). Affective experience in adulthood and old age: The role of affective arousal and perceived regulation. Psychology and Aging, 24, 349–362.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015352.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Kleinspehn-Ammerlahn, A., Kotter-Grühn, D., & Smith, J. (2008). Self-perceptions of aging: Do subjective age and satisfaction with aging change during old age? Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 63, 377–385.  https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/63.6.p377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kornadt, A. E., & Rothermund, K. (2012). Internalization of age stereotypes into the self-concept via future self-views: A general model and domain-specific differences. Psychology and Aging, 27, 164–172.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025110.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Kotter-Grühn, D., Kleinspehn-Ammerlahn, A., Gerstorf, D., & Smith, J. (2009). Self-perceptions of aging predict mortality and change with approaching death: 16-Year longitudinal results from the Berlin Aging Study. Psychology and Aging, 24, 654–667.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016510.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Lawton, M. P. (1975). The Philadelphia Geriatric Center Morale Scale: A revision. Journal of Gerontology, 30, 85–89.  https://doi.org/10.1093/geronj/30.1.85.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Levy, B. R. (2003). Mind matters: Cognitive and physical effects of aging self-stereotypes. The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 58, 203–211.  https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/58.4.p203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Levy, B. R., Slade, M. D., & Kasl, S. V. (2002). Longitudinal benefit of positive self-perceptions of aging on functional health. Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 57, 409–417.  https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/57.5.p409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Levy, B. R., Slade, M. D., Kunkel, S. R., & Kasl, S. V. (2002). Longevity increased by positive self-perceptions of aging. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 261–270.  https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.83.2.261.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Levy, B. R., Zonderman, A. B., Slade, M. D., & Ferrucci, L. (2009). Age stereotypes held earlier in life predict cardiovascular events in later life. Psychological Science, 20, 296–298.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02298.x.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. Liang, J., Lawrence, R. H., & Bollen, K. A. (1986). Age differences in the structure of the Philadelphia Geriatric Center Morale Scale. Psychology and Aging, 1, 27–33.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0882-7974.1.1.27.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Ma, L., Green, K. E., & Cox, E. O. (2009). Stability of the Philadelphia Geriatric Center Morale Scale: A multidimensional item response model and Rasch analysis. Journal of Applied Gerontology, 29, 475–493.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0733464809339623.Google Scholar
  26. McCulloch, B. J. (1991). A longitudinal investigation of the factor structure of subjective well-being: The case of the Philadelphia Geriatric Center Morale Scale. Journal of Gerontology, 46, 251–258.  https://doi.org/10.1093/geronj/46.5.p251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Miche, M., Elsässer, V. C., Schilling, O. K., & Wahl, H. W. (2014). Attitude toward own aging in midlife and early old age over a 12-year period: Examination of measurement equivalence and developmental trajectories. Psychology and Aging, 29, 588–600.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037259.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Moor, C., Zimprich, D., Schmitt, M., & Kliegel, M. (2006). Personality, aging self-perceptions, and subjective health: A mediation model. The International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 63, 241–257.  https://doi.org/10.2190/akry-um4k-pb1v-pbhf.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Moser, C., Spagnoli, J., & Santos-Eggimann, B. (2011). Self-perception of aging and vulnerability to adverse outcomes at the age of 65–70 years. Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 66, 675–680.  https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/gbr052.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mroczek, D. K., & Kolarz, C. M. (1998). The effect of age on positive and negative affect: A developmental perspective on happiness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 1333–1349.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.75.5.1333.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998–2012). Mplus user’s guide (7th ed.). Los Angeles: Muthén & Muthén.Google Scholar
  32. Nelson, T. D. (Ed.). (2004). Ageism: Stereotyping and prejudice against older persons. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  33. Niklasson, J., Conradsson, M., Hörnsten, C., Nyqvist, F., Padyab, M., Nygren, B., … Gustafson, Y. (2015). Psychometric properties and feasibility of the Swedish version of the Philadelphia Geriatric Center Morale Scale. Quality of Life Research, 24, 2795–2805.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-015-1009-4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Palmore, E. (2001). The ageism survey first findings. The Gerontologist, 41, 572–575.  https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/41.5.572.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Pavot, W., & Diener, E. (1993). Review of the satisfaction with life scale. Psychological Assessment, 5, 164–172.  https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.5.2.164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Pinar, R., & Oz, H. (2010). Validity and reliability of the Philadelphia Geriatric Center Morale Scale among Turkish elderly people. Quality of Life Research, 20, 9–18.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-010-9723-4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Rothermund, K., & Brandtstädter, J. (2003). Age stereotypes and self-views in later life: Evaluating rival assumptions. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 27, 549–554.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01650250344000208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Salthouse, T. A., Atkinson, T. M., & Berish, D. E. (2003). Executive functioning as a potential mediator of age-related cognitive decline in normal adults. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 132, 566–594.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.132.4.566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sargent-Cox, K. A., Anstey, K. J., & Luszcz, M. A. (2012). The relationship between change in self-perceptions of aging and physical functioning in older adults. Psychology and Aging, 27, 750–760.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027578.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Satorra, A. (2000). Scaled and adjusted restricted tests in multi-sample analysis of moment structures. In R.D.H. Heijmans, D.S.G. Pollock & A. Satorra (Eds.), Innovations in multivariate statistical analysis. A Festschrift for Heinz Neudecker (pp. 233–247). London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Satorra, A., & Bentler, P. M. (1994). Corrections to test statistics and standard errors in covariance structure analysis. In A. von Eye & C. C. Clogg (Eds.), Latent variable analysis: Applications to developmental research (pp. 399–419). Newbury Park: Sage.Google Scholar
  42. Settersten, R. A., Jr, & Mayer, K. U. (1997). The measurement of age, age structuring, and the life course. Annual Review of Sociology, 23, 233–261.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.23.1.233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Siedlecki, K. L., Tucker-Drob, E. M., Oishi, S., & Salthouse, T. A. (2008). Life satisfaction across adulthood: Different determinants at different ages? The Journal of Positive Psychology, 3, 153–164.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760701834602.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  44. Steverink, N., Westerhof, G. J., Bode, C., & Dittmann-Kohli, F. (2001). The personal experience of aging, individual resources, and subjective well-being. Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 56, 364–373.  https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/56.6.P364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Stock, W. A., Okun, M. A., & Benito, J. A. G. (1994). Subjective well-being measures: Reliability and validity among Spanish elders. The International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 38, 221–235.  https://doi.org/10.2190/mggy-kfn3-m4yr-dfn4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS Scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063–1070.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Wong, E., Woo, J., Hui, E., & Ho, S. C. (2004). Examination of the Philadelphia Geriatric Morale Scale as a subjective quality-of-life measure in elderly Hong Kong Chinese. The Gerontologist, 44, 408–417.  https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/44.3.408.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyState University of New York (SUNY) College at Old WestburyOld WestburyUSA
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyFordham UniversityNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations