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

IF 0.6 Q4 GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY Advances in Gerontology Pub Date : 2022-09-11 DOI:10.1134/S2079057022030067
R. Hanák, L. Pitel
{"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,&nbsp;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,&nbsp;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}
引用次数: 0

摘要

由C.S.Leung和L.K.Earl创建的退休资源量表(RRI)是衡量退休资源的常用自我报告量表。自引入以来,已经发表了10篇使用全套问题的科学论文,3篇仅使用部分问题的论文。这些产生了模棱两可和不一致的结果,各国之间测量的几乎所有参数都存在相当大的差异。本文旨在对量表的心理测量特征进行系统回顾,并检验斯洛伐克人口与退休调整、满意度和验证的元分析关系。我们发现不同的学者已经确定了3到10个因素,而不是提出的6个因素结构,使用斯洛伐克样本我们发现了4个因素。Cronbach’s alpha测量的内部可靠性在所有研究中都显示出高水平(0.85–0.93)。与RAI的荟萃分析关系显示出强烈的随机效应,r=0.6 CI[0.35,0.85],RSI r=0.509 CI[0.46,0.56]。但在每个测试国家,特定分量表的平均分与原始研究有显著差异。在RRI用于衡量退休资源之前,应在大样本上对其进行验证,并根据国家规范进行调整,以确认/拒绝将其作为心理有效的衡量标准。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Advances in Gerontology
Advances in Gerontology GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY-
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
16.70%
发文量
45
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.
期刊最新文献
Validation of the Portuguese Version of the Adult Carers Quality of Life Questionnaire (AC-QoL) among Informal Carers of Stroke Survivors Growth Differentiation Factor GDF 15 (“Protein of Senility”) under Conditions of Oxidative Stress and Intermittent Nocturnal Hypoxia in Patients with Sleep Apnea Syndrome Zinc Content in the Hair of Older Age Groups Living in the European North (Petrozavodsk) On the Impact of Lipid and Glucose Metabolism Disorders on Geriatric Syndromes Retraction Note: Molecular Mechanisms of Aging: The Role of Oxidative Stress and Epigenetic Modifications
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1