Psychometric Properties of Instruments Assessing Ageism: A Systematic Review

The global population is experiencing a significant increase in the number of older people, highlighting the need to maintain both physical and mental health among this cohort and to promote healthy ageing. One critical area that has been insufficiently explored is the prevalence and scope of ageism and its assessment. Therefore, the present review evaluated the psychometric properties of instruments designed to assess ageism against older people.

To locate relevant instruments, a search was conducted using seven databases comprising MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, Web of Science, ScienceDirect and Scopus. The review utilised the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist to assess the methodological quality of the studies identified, ensuring a thorough evaluation of relevant literature.

From an initial pool of 338,180 outputs, 20 studies were deemed suitable for inclusion. These studies addressed various aspects of ageism, with eight focusing on self-directed ageism and 12 on attitudes towards older individuals. The review found that while 18 studies tested internal consistency, only three assessed cross-cultural validity. None of the studies achieved a high methodological quality rating concerning content validity based on the COSMIN criteria.

These findings suggest a significant gap in the development of reliable and comprehensive psychometric instruments for assessing ageism, indicating a need for further refinement of these instruments.

This systematic review equips healthcare policymakers with evidence to advance the development of more robust ageism measurement tools. Additionally, the results underscore the need for researchers to conduct more thorough validation and evaluation of ageism instruments that address its multidimensional nature, thereby enhancing the quality of future gerontological research.

This systematic review equips healthcare policymakers with evidence to advance the development of more robust ageism measurement tools. Additionally, the results underscore the need for researchers to conduct more thorough validation and evaluation of ageism instruments that address its multidimensional nature, thereby enhancing the quality of future gerontological research.