IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0099100.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Attitudes to Ageing Questionnaire: Mokken Scaling Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Susan D Shenkin
  • Roger Watson
  • Ken Laidlaw
  • John M Starr
  • Ian J Deary

Abstract

Background: Hierarchical scales are useful in understanding the structure of underlying latent traits in many questionnaires. The Attitudes to Ageing Questionnaire (AAQ) explored the attitudes to ageing of older people themselves, and originally described three distinct subscales: (1) Psychosocial Loss (2) Physical Change and (3) Psychological Growth. This study aimed to use Mokken analysis, a method of Item Response Theory, to test for hierarchies within the AAQ and to explore how these relate to underlying latent traits. Methods: Participants in a longitudinal cohort study, the Lothian Birth Cohort 1936, completed a cross-sectional postal survey. Data from 802 participants were analysed using Mokken Scaling analysis. These results were compared with factor analysis using exploratory structural equation modelling. Results: Participants were 51.6% male, mean age 74.0 years (SD 0.28). Three scales were identified from 18 of the 24 items: two weak Mokken scales and one moderate Mokken scale. (1) ‘Vitality’ contained a combination of items from all three previously determined factors of the AAQ, with a hierarchy from physical to psychosocial; (2) ‘Legacy’ contained items exclusively from the Psychological Growth scale, with a hierarchy from individual contributions to passing things on; (3) ‘Exclusion’ contained items from the Psychosocial Loss scale, with a hierarchy from general to specific instances. All of the scales were reliable and statistically significant with ‘Legacy’ showing invariant item ordering. The scales correlate as expected with personality, anxiety and depression. Exploratory SEM mostly confirmed the original factor structure. Conclusions: The concurrent use of factor analysis and Mokken scaling provides additional information about the AAQ. The previously-described factor structure is mostly confirmed. Mokken scaling identifies a new factor relating to vitality, and a hierarchy of responses within three separate scales, referring to vitality, legacy and exclusion. This shows what older people themselves consider important regarding their own ageing.

Suggested Citation

  • Susan D Shenkin & Roger Watson & Ken Laidlaw & John M Starr & Ian J Deary, 2014. "The Attitudes to Ageing Questionnaire: Mokken Scaling Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(6), pages 1-11, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0099100
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0099100
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0099100
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0099100&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0099100?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Manfred K. Diehl & Hans-Werner Wahl, 2010. "Awareness of Age-Related Change: Examination of a (Mostly) Unexplored Concept," The Journals of Gerontology: Series B, The Gerontological Society of America, vol. 65(3), pages 340-350.
    2. Susanne Scheibe & Laura L. Carstensen, 2010. "Emotional Aging: Recent Findings and Future Trends," The Journals of Gerontology: Series B, The Gerontological Society of America, vol. 65(2), pages 135-144.
    3. van der Ark, L. Andries, 2007. "Mokken Scale Analysis in R," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 20(i11).
    4. van Schuur, Wijbrandt H., 2003. "Mokken Scale Analysis: Between the Guttman Scale and Parametric Item Response Theory," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 11(2), pages 139-163, April.
    5. Roger Watson & L Andries van der Ark & Li‐Chan Lin & Robert Fieo & Ian J Deary & Rob R Meijer, 2012. "Item response theory: How Mokken scaling can be used in clinical practice," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 21(19pt20), pages 2736-2746, October.
    6. Becca R. Levy, 2003. "Mind Matters: Cognitive and Physical Effects of Aging Self-Stereotypes," The Journals of Gerontology: Series B, The Gerontological Society of America, vol. 58(4), pages 203-211.
    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. Rita Saleh & Angela Bearth & Michael Siegrist, 2019. "“Chemophobia” Today: Consumers’ Knowledge and Perceptions of Chemicals," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(12), pages 2668-2682, December.
    2. Verena Klusmann & Nanna Notthoff & Ann-Kristin Beyer & Anne Blawert & Martina Gabrian, 2020. "The assessment of views on ageing: a review of self-report measures and innovative extensions," European Journal of Ageing, Springer, vol. 17(4), pages 403-433, December.
    3. Bibiana M Armenta & Katherine Stroebe & Susanne Scheibe & Tom Postmes & Nico W Van Yperen, 2017. "Feeling younger and identifying with older adults: Testing two routes to maintaining well-being in the face of age discrimination," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(11), pages 1-21, November.
    4. Dima, Alexandra L. & Stutterheim, Sarah E. & Lyimo, Ramsey & de Bruin, Marijn, 2014. "Advancing methodology in the study of HIV status disclosure: The importance of considering disclosure target and intent," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 166-174.
    5. Mirko Antino & Jesús M. Alvarado & Rodrigo A. Asún & Paul Bliese, 2020. "Rethinking the Exploration of Dichotomous Data: Mokken Scale Analysis Versus Factorial Analysis," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 49(4), pages 839-867, November.
    6. Coromina, Lluís & Camprubí, Raquel, 2016. "Analysis of tourism information sources using a Mokken Scale perspective," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 75-84.
    7. Rudy Ligtvoet & L. Ark & Wicher Bergsma & Klaas Sijtsma, 2011. "Polytomous Latent Scales for the Investigation of the Ordering of Items," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 76(2), pages 200-216, April.
    8. Andersson-Hudson, Jessica & Rose, Jonathan & Humphrey, Mathew & Knight, Wil & O'Hara, Sarah, 2019. "The structure of attitudes towards shale gas extraction in the United Kingdom," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 693-697.
    9. Penny Bee & Chris Gibbons & Patrick Callaghan & Claire Fraser & Karina Lovell, 2016. "Evaluating and Quantifying User and Carer Involvement in Mental Health Care Planning (EQUIP): Co-Development of a New Patient-Reported Outcome Measure," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(3), pages 1-14, March.
    10. Martin Komarc & Ivana Harbichová & Lawrence M Scheier, 2020. "Psychometric validation of Czech version of the Sport Motivation Scale," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(1), pages 1-20, January.
    11. Ehud Bodner & Liat Ayalon & Sharon Avidor & Yuval Palgi, 2017. "Accelerated increase and relative decrease in subjective age and changes in attitudes toward own aging over a 4-year period: results from the Health and Retirement Study," European Journal of Ageing, Springer, vol. 14(1), pages 17-27, March.
    12. Anna E. Kornadt & Eva-Marie Kessler & Susanne Wurm & Catherine E. Bowen & Martina Gabrian & Verena Klusmann, 2020. "Views on ageing: a lifespan perspective," European Journal of Ageing, Springer, vol. 17(4), pages 387-401, December.
    13. Anne-Linda Camerini & Peter J. Schulz, 2018. "Social Desirability Bias in Child-Report Social Well-Being: Evaluation of the Children’s Social Desirability Short Scale Using Item Response Theory and Examination of Its Impact on Self-Report Family ," Child Indicators Research, Springer;The International Society of Child Indicators (ISCI), vol. 11(4), pages 1159-1174, August.
    14. Wen Liu & Roger Watson & Feng‐lan Lou, 2014. "The Edinburgh Feeding Evaluation in Dementia scale (EdFED): cross‐cultural validation of the simplified Chinese version in mainland China," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(1-2), pages 45-53, January.
    15. Simon Otjes, 2018. "What’s Left of the Left–Right Dimension? Why the Economic Policy Positions of Europeans Do Not Fit the Left–Right Dimension," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 136(2), pages 645-662, April.
    16. César Merino-Soto & Gina Chávez-Ventura & Verónica López-Fernández & Guillermo M. Chans & Filiberto Toledano-Toledano, 2022. "Learning Self-Regulation Questionnaire (SRQ-L): Psychometric and Measurement Invariance Evidence in Peruvian Undergraduate Students," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(18), pages 1-17, September.
    17. Jean Ryan, 2020. "Examining the Process of Modal Choice for Everyday Travel Among Older People," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(3), pages 1-19, January.
    18. Anne J. Dutt & Hans-Werner Wahl, 2019. "Future time perspective and general self-efficacy mediate the association between awareness of age-related losses and depressive symptoms," European Journal of Ageing, Springer, vol. 16(2), pages 227-236, June.
    19. Enzo Loner, 2016. "A new way of looking at old things. An application of Guttman errors analysis to the study of environmental concern," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 50(2), pages 823-847, March.
    20. Elizabeth A. Kensinger & Angela H. Gutchess, 2017. "Cognitive Aging in a Social and Affective Context: Advances Over the Past 50 Years," The Journals of Gerontology: Series B, The Gerontological Society of America, vol. 72(1), pages 61-70.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:plo:pone00:0099100. 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.