IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/geronb/v72y2017i2p214-227..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Concordance and Discordance of Self-Rated and Researcher-Measured Successful Aging: Subtypes and Associated Factors

Author

Listed:
  • Danan Gu
  • Qiushi Feng
  • Jessica M. Sautter
  • Fang Yang
  • Lei Ma
  • Zhihong Zhen

Abstract

Objectives:To investigate subtypes of successful aging (SA) based on concordance and discordance between self-rated and researcher-defined measures and their associations with demographic, psychosocial, and life satisfaction factors.Method:We used multinomial logistic regression models to analyze 2013 cross-sectional survey data from 1,962 persons aged 65 and older in Shanghai that measured self-rated successful aging (SSA) with a single global assessment and researcher-defined successful aging (RSA) with a cumulative deficit index reflecting physical, physiological, cognitive, psychological, and social engagement domains. We generated four subtypes based on these two dichotomous variables: nonsuccessful aging (non-SA; meeting neither the criterion of RSA nor the criterion of SSA), RSA-only (meeting the criterion of RSA-only but not the criterion of SSA), SSA-only (meeting the criterion of SSA-only but not the criterion of RSA), and both-successful aging (both-SA; meeting both criteria of RSA and SSA).Results:In the sample, 32% were nonsuccessful agers, 7% RSA-only, 34% SSA-only, and 27% successful agers. Female gender and older age were associated with lower likelihood of RSA-only and both-SA relative to non-SA, but with greater likelihood of SSA-only. Good socioeconomic conditions and social networks were associated with greater likelihood of SSA-only and both-SA relative to non-SA or RSA-only. Satisfaction with life domains was robustly and positively associated with good successful aging outcomes.Discussion:Researcher-defined successful aging and self-rated successful aging are different measures with distinct social correlates. Subtypes of concordance and discordance provide a more holistic biopsychosocial conceptualization of successful aging.

Suggested Citation

  • Danan Gu & Qiushi Feng & Jessica M. Sautter & Fang Yang & Lei Ma & Zhihong Zhen, 2017. "Concordance and Discordance of Self-Rated and Researcher-Measured Successful Aging: Subtypes and Associated Factors," The Journals of Gerontology: Series B, The Gerontological Society of America, vol. 72(2), pages 214-227.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:geronb:v:72:y:2017:i:2:p:214-227.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/geronb/gbw143
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mina Daraei & Artmiz Mohajery, 2013. "The Impact of Socioeconomic Status on Life Satisfaction," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 112(1), pages 69-81, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Inmaculada García-Martínez & José María Augusto Landa & Samuel P. León, 2021. "The Mediating Role of Engagement on the Achievement and Quality of Life of University Students," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(12), pages 1-12, June.
    2. Huong Le & Zhou Jiang & Ingrid Nielsen, 2018. "Cognitive Cultural Intelligence and Life Satisfaction of Migrant Workers: The Roles of Career Engagement and Social Injustice," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 139(1), pages 237-257, August.
    3. Xiaodong Yang & Lai Wei & Qi Su, 2020. "How Is Climate Change Knowledge Distributed among the Population in Singapore? A Demographic Analysis of Actual Knowledge and Illusory Knowledge," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(9), pages 1-13, May.
    4. Teresa María García Muñoz & Juliette Milgram Baleix & Omar Odeh Odeh, 2022. "System Justification Beliefs and Life Satisfaction. The role of inequality aversion and support for redistribution," ThE Papers 22/15, Department of Economic Theory and Economic History of the University of Granada..
    5. Harald Strotmann & Jürgen Volkert, 2018. "Multidimensional Poverty Index and Happiness," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 19(1), pages 167-189, January.
    6. Roshin Kunnel John & Boby Xavier & Anja Waldmeier & Andrea Hans Meyer & Jens Gaab, 2020. "The governmental ranking of class and the academic performance of Indian adolescents," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(11), pages 1-12, November.
    7. Son, Woo-Jung & Bae, Sung-Man, 2022. "The relationship between human rights, negative affect, bullying victimization, and life satisfaction among Korean adolescents: A national sample study," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 139(C).
    8. Jennifer Brown & Ronald MacDonald & Richard Mitchell, 2015. "Are People Who Participate in Cultural Activities More Satisfied with Life?," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 122(1), pages 135-146, May.
    9. Xingmin Shi & Xueping Li & Xieyang Chen & Luping Zhang, 2022. "Objective air quality index versus subjective perception: which has a greater impact on life satisfaction?," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 24(5), pages 6860-6877, May.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:geronb:v:72:y:2017:i:2:p:214-227.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/psychsocgerontology .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.