Where have we been and where are we going? Content analysis of non-familial intergenerational research

Background

Shannon E. Jarrott, Ph.D. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University

Next Steps

Selection & Coding Conclusion

Results

t@vt.eduhttp://www.intergenerational.clahs.vt.edu/ Presented at the Gerontological Society of America's 62nd Annual Conference, Atlanta, GA November 2009 sjarrott@vt.edu

•We searched EBSCO databases Erik, Medline, and PsycInfo in January 2008 for peer-reviewed journal articles in English using the search terms: intergen*, program*, NOT exchange, and NOT famil*. The search yielded 426 articles.

•We deleted articles that were not non-familial intergenerational or were not journal articles. We deleted reviews of books and films, non-English and duplicate articles, and those that could not be retrieved through the university library or interlibrary loan. Finally, we deleted 19 that described interventions to improve attitudes towards and knowledge of older adults but lacked contact with older adults. This yielded a sample of 216 articles; we coded 164 for the current study.

•Trained coders established inter-rater reliability before coding articles independently. Each article coding sheet was reviewed by another coder for accuracy. Coders noted the following qualities for each article:

•High quality research of non-familial intergenerational programs has been conducted, but greater effort is needed to bring the field in line with the standards of child development, gerontology, education, and community research.

•Our knowledge of the best practices and potential impact of non-familial intergenerational programs will grow with the following:

•Explicit use of theory to inform methods and interpretation of results

•Larger sample sizes

•Assessment of all participating generations and other stakeholders

•Assessment of long-term effects of programs beyond pre-post measures

•Connecting attitudinal change to key outcomes, such as health

•Basic research exploring early influences on attitudes towards the other generation and individuals’ own aging

•Experimental research, including randomized clinical trials

•Investigation of health & educational outcomes of interest to funders (e.g., cost-effectiveness, school readiness, self-perception & associated health benefits)

•Other fields studying innovative therapeutic programming resemble the state of intergenerational research; with the explosion of intergenerational programs in the US and abroad, a great opportunity exists to improve the state of the art.

•Criticisms of early intergenerational research remain relevant today.

•While more studies are published, characteristics do not reflect contemporary research trends, such as large samples, long-term follow up, assessment of health indicators, or use of standardized measures and advanced analyses techniques.

•The field has room for new researchers and practitioners to make contributions. For example, the Journal of Intergenerational Relationships invites practitioners to submit program profiles to inform practice and spark research. Practitioners should disseminate program information, and they need to partner with researchers to systematically assess program impact.

•The best way to promote intergenerational programs is to comprehend how they work. Scholars and practitioners must partner to identify evidence-based best practices with varied participants and settings using the best research tools and techniques available to achieve targeted results.

•Human services providers increasingly turn to intergenerational programs to meet client and community needs. These programs, which purposefully engage youth and elders for mutual benefit, include tutoring for immigrant elders and respite for parents of disabled children.

•Intergenerational scholars frequently note limitations and gaps in the intergenerational literature published in research journals. Criticisms have included:

•A preponderance of program descriptions presenting only anecdotal evidence of impact

•Limited use of theory and standardized measures

•Assessment of only one generation of participants with limited attention to other stakeholders, such as children’s parents or program staff

•Ubiquity of “soft” measures of affect and enjoyment while other significant indicators of health and impact remain unmeasured

•Absence of longitudinal evaluations that track long-term effects on participants

•We conducted a content analysis of non-familial intergenerational journal articles to describe the qualities of intergenerational research, whether limitations have been addressed in more recent studies, and what the current generation of intergenerational scholars must do to move the field forward.

Characteristic 1970s(n=2)

1980s(n=12)

1990s(n=54)

2000s(n=95)

Category (%)

Research 50 67 65 56

Prog. Descript. 50 33 24 35

Use of Theory in Research articles (%)

Explicit 0 25 36 36

Implicit 0 13 31 15

Atheoretical 100 63 33 50

•Social distance (36%), contact (15%), & Erikson’s theories (15%) were most common (explicit/implicit). Community, developmental, & educational theories were also used.

•Studies were divided between cross-sectional & longitudinal design; most longitudinal studies were pre-post assessments; a few studies followed participants up to 5 years.

•Sample size was uniformly small. Most samples of children were fewer than 50, while samples of elders were less than 25. Just 17 participant samples exceeded 100.

We analyzed 164 articles published since 1977. We coded program and research qualities of all research publications (n=98)

Other than an increase in evaluating perspectives of non-participant stakeholders, qualities of the studies were static across the decades.

•Less than one-third of the studies assessed multiple generations of participants.•Direct report and observation were frequently used (86%); proxy report was common for young children and dementing elders (34%); performance indicators were rarely used.•Authors utilized multivariate analyses most frequently (42%). •Commonly measured outcomes were: attitudes towards the other generation (43%), behavior (28%), and reports of benefits/ challenges for participants (28%). Well being, cognitive performance, and benefits/challenges for other participants were also measured. •Only benefits were reported in 67% of the studies, but 30% identified benefits and challenges. Two cases reported no impact, and only one reported only negative results.