Premium
Translation and validation of the ageism scale for dental students in Romanian (ASDS‐Rom)
Author(s) -
Veenstra Luke,
Barlow Patrick,
Kossioni Anastassia,
Popescu Sanda Mihaela,
Mercut Veronica,
Tuculina Mihaela Jana,
Scrieciu Monica,
Stanusi Andreea,
Marchini Leonardo
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
european journal of dental education
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.583
H-Index - 41
eISSN - 1600-0579
pISSN - 1396-5883
DOI - 10.1111/eje.12572
Subject(s) - varimax rotation , scale (ratio) , psychology , multivariate analysis of variance , principal component analysis , test (biology) , reliability (semiconductor) , clinical psychology , statistics , mathematics , psychometrics , cronbach's alpha , geography , physics , quantum mechanics , paleontology , power (physics) , cartography , biology
Aims The aim of this paper was to validate the Romanian version of an ageism scale for dental students. Materials and Methods The initial 27‐item ageism scale was translated into Romanian and administered to 210 dental students in Craiova. The data were analysed using principal components analysis (PCA) with an orthogonal, Varimax rotation. The answers were then compared across several demographic variables using a combination of independent samples t tests and one‐way between‐subjects analysis of variance (ANOVA). Results Adequate factorability was confirmed with a Kaiser‐Meyer‐Olkin (KMO) of 0.676 and a Bartlett's Test of Sphericity yielding P < 0.001. PCA revealed a 10‐item scale distributed into three components that accounted for 58% of the overall variance. The first component contained 4 items related to the cost‐benefit of providing care to older patients (α = 0.80). The second contained 3 items that revolved around the perceptions about older people and their value in the society (α = 0.59). The third contained 3 items related to gerodontology training (α = 0.46). Discriminant validity showed differences in the first component based on whether a student had an older family member. Conclusions The 10‐item, three components scale demonstrated acceptable validity and reliability.