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.

The world population is aging, and for the first time in human history the majority of the population can expect to reach at least 60 years of age. This has been recognized as one of humanity' s major achievements. 1 However, a growing older adult population requires profound changes in the existing health care systems, as diseases burden disproportionally affect the aged cohorts. Many older adults have multiple comorbidities, with appropriate medical care compromised by many factors, including ageism. 2

Background and Objective Ageism is a major barrier for age‐appropriate care. The aim of this study was to translate and perform a preliminary validation of an ageism scale for dental students (ASDS) in Brazil (ASDS‐Braz). Methods The 27‐item original ageism scale was translated from English into Brazilian Portuguese. A panel of five Brazilian dental educators revised the scale to establish content validity. The translated version was completed by 156 dental students in the Federal University of Pelotas in Brazil. Principal component analysis, internal consistency reliability and discriminant validity were estimated. Results All items in the Brazilian Portuguese version received a content validity index score ≥0.80 indicating that they were relevant to the topic. The principal component analysis produced a 12‐item scale with three components that accounted for 51% of the overall variance. The first component contained six items associated with a negative view of older adults; the second component contained three items dealing with the complexity of providing care for older adults; and the third component contained three items associated with a positive view of older people. Discriminant validity did not show any differences related to demographic factors, the semester of studies and history of living with older people. Conclusions The preliminary validation of the ASDS‐Braz produced a 12‐item scale with three components with acceptable validity and reliability. Future research in a larger, multi‐institutional sample is now warranted.