Background Parents often use digital media to search for information related to their children’s health. As the quantity and quality of digital sources meant specifically for parents expand, parents’ digital health literacy is increasingly important to process the information they retrieve. One of the earliest developed and widely used instruments to assess digital health literacy is the self-reported eHealth Literacy Scale (eHEALS). However, the eHEALS has not been psychometrically validated in a sample of parents. Given the inconsistency of the eHEALS underlying factor structure across previous reports, it is particularly important for validation to occur. Objective This study aimed to determine the factor structure of the German eHEALS measure in a sample of parents by adopting classic and modern psychometric approaches. In particular, this study sought to identify the eHEALS validity as a unidimensional index as well as the viability for potential subscales. Methods A cross-sectional design was used across two purposive sampling frames: online and paper administrations. Responses were collected between January 2018 and May 2018 from 703 Swiss-German parents. In addition to determining the sampling characteristics, we conducted exploratory factor analysis of the eHEALS by considering its ordinal structure using polychoric correlations. This analysis was performed separately for online–based and paper–based responses to examine the general factor strength of the eHEALS as a unidimensional index. Furthermore, item response theory (IRT) analyses were conducted by fitting eHEALS to a bifactor model to further inspect its unidimensionality and subscale viability. Results Parents in both samples were predominantly mothers (622/703, 88.5%), highly educated (538/703, 76.9%), of Swiss nationality (489/703, 71.8%), and living with a partner (692/703, 98.4%). Factor analyses of the eHEALS indicated the presence of a strong general factor across both paper and online samples, and the Wilcoxon rank-sum test indicated that the eHEALS total sum score was not significantly different between the paper and online samples (P=.12). Finally, the IRT analyses indicated negligible multidimensionality, insufficient subscale reliability after accounting for the eHEALS general factor, and a reduced subset of items that could serve as a unidimensional index of the eHEALS across the paper and online samples. Conclusions The German eHEALS evidenced good psychometric properties in a parent-specific study sample. Factor analyses indicated a strong general factor across purposively distinct sample frames (online and paper). IRT analyses validated the eHEALS as a unidimensional index while failing to find support for subscale usage.

As workforce aging continues through the next decade, the number of persons who will retire from long-held jobs and careers will increase. In recent years, researchers across disciplines of psychology have focused attention on the impact of the retirement process on post-retirement adjustment and well-being. The objective of the current review is twofold. The first goal is to review the literature on retirement planning with attention to past conceptualizations and current theoretical specifications. Second, empirical work investigating the psychological antecedents of retirement planning is reviewed. The primary conclusion reached from this review is that, conceptually, retirement planning continues to be poorly delineated and, thereby, narrowly investigated. Empirically, cognitive antecedents of retirement planning continue to figure prominently in both workplace and retirement researches. The boundary conditions of retirement planning, as well as alternative mechanisms for adult wellbeing, are discussed. Specifically, retirement planning's meaning amidst increasing job mobility and longer life expectancies are identified as two complementary areas for future empirical integration of work–retirement research domains.

This short report aims to bring evidence from modern psychometric methods to bear on a popularly deployed questionnaire in interprofessional education (IPE) assessment. Specifically, three interrelated problems raised against the Readiness for Interprofessional Learning Scale (RIPLS) are examined in a study with 280 medical and nursing student participants. Firstly, findings support RIPLS overall reliability, but fail to support subscale reliabilities. Secondly, findings indicate a strong, general factor underlying the RIPLS that supports unidimensional interpretations. Thirdly, findings support the RIPLS potential sensitivity to changes with appropriate lower ranges for our pre-training student sample. Recommendations for refinement to the RIPLS include: use of more appropriate reliability indices; factor generalizability; and a subset of items. More generally, refinement is possible, whereas RIPLS disuse or continued misuse with problematic scales is likely to hinder progress in the field of IPE.

Future time perspective (FTP) is defined as “perceptions of the future as being limited or open-ended” (Lang and Carstensen, 2002; p. 125). The construct figures prominently in both workplace and retirement domains, but the age-predictions are competing: Workplace research predicts decreasing FTP age-change, in contrast, retirement scholars predict increasing FTP age-change. For the first time, these competing predictions are pitted in an experimental manipulation of subjective life expectancy (SLE). A sample of N = 207 older adults (age 45–60) working full-time (>30-h/week) were randomly assigned to SLE questions framed as either ‘Live-to’ or ‘Die-by’ to evaluate competing predictions for FTP. Results indicate general support for decreasing age-change in FTP, indicated by independent-sample t-tests showing lower FTP in the ‘Die-by’ framing condition. Further general-linear model analyses were conducted to test for interaction effects of retirement planning with experimental framings on FTP and intended retirement; While retirement planning buffered FTP’s decrease, simple-effects also revealed that retirement planning increased intentions for sooner retirement, but lack of planning increased intentions for later retirement. Discussion centers on practical implications of our findings and consequences validity evidence in future empirical research of FTP in both workplace and retirement domains.

No abstract