Psychometric Evaluation of Age Discrimination Measures Using Classic Test and Item Response Theories

Abstract

Although workplace age discrimination research has been recognized as increasingly important, much less agreement has been reached regarding the operationalization and measurement of age discrimination. There are multiple age discrimination scales, yet no systematic investigation of potential convergence across those scales exists. We conducted two investigations of age discrimination scales that differ in multiple measurement characteristics (e.g., content domain). Findings of confirmatory factor analyses from Study 1 (N = 248) indicated that although different age discrimination scales were related to the same higher-order construct, they were not interchangeable as they each accounted for idiosyncratic measurement variance. The usage of different scales resulted in different magnitudes of the relationships between age discrimination and its correlates. In addition to the replication of these results in Study 2 (N = 939), an item response theory approach was applied to demonstrate that different age discrimination scales possess different levels of test information at different places of the latent trait continuum. Taken together, our findings provide implications for researchers to thoughtfully choose their operationalization of age discrimination.

Assessing age discrimination in workplaces: psychometric exploration of the Workplace Age Discrimination Scale (WADS-G)

“…An encouraging outlier in this landscape is the WADS by Marchiondo et al (2016) , which underwent an independent development process. Demonstrating commendable psychometric properties, the scale exhibited configural and metric invariance across age groups, with Peng et al’s (2023) findings even indicating scalar invariance. Nevertheless, the divergent paths taken in the psychometric development and validation within this field present a challenge, precluding meaningful comparisons of results.…”

“…A recent systematic review by Peng et al (2023) on workplace age discrimination measures encompassed evaluations for both younger and older employees, revealing a lack of consensus in the operationalization and assessment of age discrimination. Furthermore, the majority of instruments, originating from the realms of sexism and racism, have not undergone adequate development and validation.…”

“…Aligned with the in-group-out-group perspective articulated by Marchiondo et al (2016) , the WADS focuses on the meso-level of ageism, delving into interpersonal and intergroup-specific experiences of workplace age discrimination (see Table 1 ). Recent empirical studies have used the scale primarily to better understand age discrimination against older people in the workplace, for example to investigate the consequences of age discrimination and mediating mechanisms ( McConatha et al, 2022 ; Dong et al, 2023 ; Peng et al, 2023 ) and antecedents of age discrimination ( Reeves et al, 2021 ; Lagacé et al, 2023 ; Von Humboldt et al, 2023 ). But also, to develop new scales ( Wilckens et al, 2021 ) or to validate newly developed scales ( Reeves et al, 2021 ).…”

You Can Leave the Younger Workers Out of It! Toward a Centered Paradigm for Studying Older Workers’ Employment Relationships and Late-Career Dynamics

“…Note measurement invariance-whether measures behave the same way as people mature and age over the course of the longitudinal study. Aging measures can fail to show adequate measurement invariance to demonstrate change over time (e.g., age discrimination; Peng, Min, Rosenblatt, & Zhang, 2022). While at least partial scalar invariance is needed, departures from measurement invariance are still substantively interesting.…”

The Super-Short Form of Career Adapt-Abilities Scale: Cross-Cultural Validation in China and the United Kingdom

“…A 6-item short version scale developed by Rigotti et al (2008) was used to measure occupational self-efficacy. It has been adopted among Chinese sample (Peng et al, 2023). Participants responded to items such as “I can remain calm when facing difficulties in my job because I can rely on my abilities.” Cronbach’s alphas in Sample 2 and Sample 3 were .87 and .79, respectively.…”