The authors investigated the factor structure and construct validity of the Fraboni Scale of Ageism and the age and gender differences in ageism scores. Confirmatory factor analyses supported the multidimensional nature of FSA scores and generally corroborated the initial factor structure reported by M. Fraboni, with some notable exceptions. Essentially, the present findings were aligned with theoretical models of ageism that emphasize both cognitive facets and affective facets. That is, on the basis of their factor analytic findings, the authors redefined Fraboni's original factors of Antilocution, Avoidance, and Discrimination as Stereotypes, Separation, and Affective Attitudes, respectively, because of the clustering of items within factors. The revised 3-factor structure accounted for 36.4% of the variance in FSA scores. FSA factor scores significantly related to other scores from other measures of age-related attitudes, with higher correlations among factors that were similar in terms of their cognitive nature versus their affective nature. Finally, younger individuals and men had significantly higher ageism scores on the FSA than older individuals and women. The authors discussed the importance of adequately assessing ageism, with particular emphasis devoted to the understanding of age bias.

This research presents a review of the psychometric measures on boredom that have been developed over the past 25 years. Specifically, the author examined the Boredom Proneness Scale (BPS; R. Farmer & N. D. Sundberg, 1986), the job boredom scales by E. A. Grubb (1975) and T. W. Lee (1986), a boredom coping measure (J. A. Hamilton, R. J. Haier, & M. S. Buchsbaum, 1984), 2 scales that assess leisure and free-time boredom (S. E. Iso-Ahola & E. Weissinger, 1990; M. G. Ragheb & S. P. Merydith, 2001), the Sexual Boredom Scale (SBS; J. D. Watt & J. E. Ewing, 1996), and the Boredom Susceptibility (BS) subscale of the Sensation Seeking Scale (M. Zuckerman, 1979a). Particular attention is devoted to discussing the literature regarding the psychometric properties of the BPS because it is the only full-scale measure on the construct of boredom.

A detailed review of the psychometric measures of boredom was published approximately 12 years ago (Vodanovich, 2003). Since that time, numerous studies have been conducted on existing scales, and new measures of boredom have been developed. Given these assessment advancements, an updated review of self-report boredom scales is warranted. The primary focus of the current review is research published since 2003, and it includes a total of 16 boredom scales. The measures reviewed consist of two trait assessments (Boredom Proneness Scale, Boredom Susceptibility subscale of the Sensation Seeking Scale), five context-specific trait boredom scales (Boredom Coping Scale, Leisure Boredom Scale, Free Time Boredom Scale, Sexual Boredom Scale, Relational Boredom Scale), three assessments of state boredom (Multidimensional State Boredom Scale, State Boredom Measure, Boredom Experience Scale), and six context-specific state boredom measures-Lee's Job Boredom Scale, Dutch Boredom Scale, Boredom Coping Scale (Academic), the Boredom subscale of the Achievement Emotions Questionnaire, Academic Boredom Scale, Precursors to Boredom Scale. In addition to providing a review of these measures, a brief critique of each scale is included, as well as suggestions for needed research focus.

The relationship between boredom proneness and health-symptom reporting was examined. Undergraduate students (N ϭ 200) completed the Boredom Proneness Scale and the Hopkins Symptom Checklist. A multiple analysis of covariance indicated that individuals with high boredomproneness total scores reported significantly higher ratings on all five subscales of the Hopkins Symptom Checklist (Obsessive-Compulsive, Somatization, Anxiety, Interpersonal Sensitivity, and Depression). The results suggest that boredom proneness may be an important element to consider when assessing symptom reporting. Implications for determining the effects of boredom proneness on psychological-and physical-health symptoms, as well as the application in clinical settings, are discussed.

We analyzed previous exploratory factor analytic structures on the Boredom Proneness Scale (BPS; Farmer & Sundberg, 1986) using confirmatory factor analysis in structural equation modeling in LISREL 8 (Jöreskog & Sörbom, 1993). These analyses indicated that 2 factors were generally consistent across 6 exploratory models. Items that had significant loadings on these two factors (N = 12; 6 for each factor) indicated a lack of Internal Stimulation and External Stimulation. In further analysis on these 12 items using LISREL, we found a much improved fit and provided support for a short form version of the original BPS. We also found the shortened version to be invariant across gender. We discuss implications for the more precise measurement of boredom proneness and the use of the scale in applied settings.