Objectives The objectives of this study were threefold: (1) to empirically test the conceptual model proposed by the Lichtenberg Financial Decision Rating Scale (LFDRS); (2) to examine the psychometric properties of the LFDRS contextual factors in financial decision-making by investigating both the reliability and convergent validity of the subscales and total scale, and (3) extending previous work on the scale through the collection of normative data on financial decision-making. Methods A convenience sample of 200 independent function and community dwelling older adults underwent cognitive and financial management testing and were interviewed using the LFDRS. Confirmatory factor analysis, internal consistency measures, and hierarchical regression were used in a sample of 200 community-dwelling older adults, all of whom were making or had recently made a significant financial decision. Results Results confirmed the scale’s reliability and supported the conceptual model. Convergent validity analyses indicate that as hypothesized, cognition is a significant predictor of risk scores. Financial management scores, however, were not predictive of decision-making risk scores. Conclusions The psychometric properties of the LFDRS support the scale’s use as it was proposed in Lichtenberg et al., 2015. Clinical Implications The LFDRS instructions and scale are provided for clinicians to use in financial capacity assessments.

Background and Objectives Context can influence or overwhelm the intellectual and cognitive aspects of financial decision making but has only recently received increased attention. The construct validity of conceptual subscales from a financial decision-making scale was examined in the context of their relationship to financial exploitation. Research Design and Methods Two hundred forty-two community-based participants were recruited into the study. The final sample contained 242 participants. Measures included demographic variables, conceptually derived contextual items, and neurocognitive measures. Seventeen of the 34 contextual items investigated differentiated financially exploited and nonexploited older adults. Combining these 17 contextual items led to the creation of a new scale: the Financial Exploitation Vulnerability Scale (FEVS). Correlational analyses and area under the curve analyses were used to examine the relationship between this new scale of contextual items and other measures and to determine how clinically meaningful the scale was in the current sample. Results Contextual items were powerful discriminators between those who were exploited and those who were not. The new scale of contextual items (the FEVS) demonstrated good internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.82) and a strong area under the curve (receiver operating characteristic = 0.80), thereby indicating good clinical significance and evidence for construct validity. Discussion and Implications We examined the conceptually derived subscales of financial awareness, psychological vulnerability, and relationship strain and how these relate to financial exploitation. Our major finding is that contextual items differentiated between exploited and nonexploited adults, which demonstrate the importance of measuring context in financial decision making and exploitation. A new scale for measuring contextual items was introduced.

No abstract

Background and Objective: Despite the growth of financial exploitation research in the past decade, almost none has focused on older urban adults, and especially urban African Americans. The Success After Financial Exploitation (SAFE) program provides individual financial coaching to older urban adults. Methods: We use community education, delivered separately to older adults and to the professionals who serve them, to raise awareness about financial exploitation (FE) and to motivate referrals for financial coaching. This paper describes the program and methodology, and uses case examples and preliminary research to investigate the intersection of FE and physical and mental health functioning. Results: SAFE participants were able to repair their credit scores, reduce new financial burdens, and even recover monies they had lost due to FE. Case examples illustrate how financial scams and identity theft impacts urban older adults. Participants were assessed prior to the provision of services, and SAFE participants performed poorer on executive functioning tasks than participants in the control group. They also reported more physical health problems and anxiety and depressive symptoms. SAFE participants also had significantly higher risk scores on a financial decisionmaking scale. Conclusion: Study findings advance our understanding of the impacts of FE on cognitive functioning, mental health, and financial decision-making. Clinical Implications: Clinicians need to be more attuned to the financial health of their older clients, who, if they are struggling with financial exploitation, may also be suffering from problems with cognitive functioning and physical and mental health.

This study adds to the empirical evidence supporting the use of the rating scale as a clinical tool assessing risk for financial decisional impairment and/or financial exploitation.