Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38689726›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2024

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

Maria Funk, Timo Lorenz

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
5.1field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Maria FunkDepartment of Psychology, Medical School Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Timo LorenzDepartment of Psychology, Medical School Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
MSB Medical School Berlin · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In contemporary workplaces characterized by diverse age groups working collaboratively, the assessment of age discrimination as an interpersonal phenomenon has gained heightened significance. This study focuses on adapting and scrutinizing the psychometric properties of the German iteration of the Workplace Age Discrimination Scale (WADS-G). Comprehensive Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) results affirm a robust fit for the unidimensional model. Convergent validity is established through correlations between WADS-G scores and related instruments, while discriminant validity is evidenced by its lack of association with extraversion. Noteworthy findings include a positive correlation with turnover intention and negative correlations with job satisfaction, occupational self-efficacy, and organizational affective commitment. Despite its merits, the predictive efficacy of the WADS-G is notably inferior when juxtaposed with the Workplace Incivility Scale. Its explanatory power for turnover intention is constrained when accounting for variables such as job satisfaction, work environment, neuroticism, and core self-evaluation. Although measurement invariance testing across gender groups reveals scalar to strict measurement invariance, the examination across age groups indicates metric invariance. However, Confirmatory Factor Analyses for the 18-30 and 50+ age groups, central to the research emphasis, reveal suboptimal model fit. These outcomes prompt a nuanced discussion on whether the WADS-G aptly captures age-discriminatory experiences across diverse age and gender cohorts among employees.

Indexed as

ageismconfirmatory factor analysesdiversityinter-age contactintersectionalitymeasurement invariancescale validationworkplace age discrimination

Identifiers

PMID38689726
PMCPMC11059957
OpenAlexW4394817457

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.