Objectives To describe the validation of a new 27‐item ageism scale for dental students in Greece. Background A new ageism scale for dental students has been developed by American and European Gerodontology educators and was preliminary validated in the United States. Methods The scale was translated into Greek and administered to 8th‐ and 10th‐semester dental students in Athens. Principal components analysis was used to explore the internal structure of the measure; internal consistency reliability was assessed using Cronbach's α coefficient; corrected item‐total correlations were calculated to decide which low contributing items should be removed from the scale; and discriminant validity was tested investigating variation in relation to demographic and educational factors. Results A total of 152 students responded to the questionnaire. The Principal component analysis offered a 15‐item scale distributed into four factors that accounted for 56.4%, of the total variance, produced stronger factor loadings, a comparable amount of overall component variance and logical sets of components. The four factors produced were values/ethics about older people (four items, α = 0.71), patient compliance (four items, α = 0.72), barriers to dental care (four items, α = 0.57) and dentist‐older patient interaction (three items, α = 0.64). Discriminant validity revealed statistically significant differences in factors and items related to semester of studies, gender and family's permanent residence. Conclusion The preliminary validation of the Greek version of the ageing scale for dental students revealed a 15‐item questionnaire that demonstrated acceptable validity and reliability and could be further tested in larger samples.

Purpose/aim: Ageism negatively affects health care. This paper presents an extended validation of a novel scale assessing ageism among dental students. Method and materials:A previously pilot-tested 27-question scale applied to a larger sample (n = 315) from two U.S. dental schools with Principal Component Analysis used to assess internal structure of the measure. Questions whose deletion increased the overall loading on >1 factor or those unexpectedly grouped in another factor were thoroughly examined.

No abstract

Despite being an established practice in the disabilities service systems, person-centered planning is a relatively new practice in the behavioral health system. As a result, little is known about the barriers that mental health organizations face in implementing person-centered recovery planning (PCRP). To fill this gap, results are presented from a qualitative analysis of nine focus groups at three public mental health organizations in Texas that have been implementing PCRP for at least 2 years. Findings suggest that organizations experienced 12 distinct barriers to PCRP implementation which were categorized into the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research domains of intervention characteristics, the outer setting, the inner setting, characteristics of individuals, and the implementation process. Half of these 12 barriers fell within the inner setting domain, suggesting that implementation efforts should be flexible and adaptable to organizational culture and context. One-quarter of the barriers fell into the domain of characteristics of individuals involved in the intervention, which further suggests implementation efforts should assess the impact that both staff and consumers have on implementation success.