This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Gorey, K. M. Articles by Brice, G. C. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                   What's this?

The Prevalence of Elder Care Responsibilities among the Work Force Population

Response Bias among a Group of Cross-Sectional Surveys

State University of New York at Buffalo

Robert W. Rice

State University of New York at Buffalo

Gary C. Brice

State University of New York at Buffalo

This review synthesizes the findings of 17 independent studies dealing with the prevalence of elder care responsibilities among the work force population. Across-study, summative findings were: (a) approximately one fifth (M = 21.1%) to one quarter (Md = 23.1%) of employees provide care for an elderly dependent; primary study findings varied by a factor of nearly 25, ranging from a high estimate of 46.0% to a low of 1.9%; (b) the average response rate was fairly low (M = 45.0% and Md = 41. 1%), indicating that the studies captured only slightly more than one third, but less than half of all eligible in-sample assignments; (c) the correlation of prevalence and response rates was found to be r = -.69, p < .01; (d) the partial correlation of prevalence with response rate, adjusted for the breadth of the elder care operational definition, remained significant, r = -.50,p < .05; and (e) these two methodological characteristics together accounted for half (R2 = .505) of the variability in reported prevalence, response rate accounting for nearly all (95.4%) of this explained criterion variation. Bias due to nonresponse thus represents a potent threat to the validity of the mean prevalence estimate found in this body of research (21.1%). The implementation of statistical controls for nonresponse and definitional inconsistencies resulted in an estimated prevalence of 7.4% to 11.8%; however, this review outcome is tentative at best and must be tested with future, better controlled primary studies.

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				E. K. Pavalko and K. A. Henderson Combining Care Work and Paid Work: Do Workplace Policies Make a Difference? Research on Aging, May 1, 2006; 28(3): 359 - 374. [Abstract] [PDF]

				M. Silverstein and T. M. Parrott Attitudes toward Government Policies that Assist Informal Caregivers: The Link between Personal Troubles and Public Issues Research on Aging, May 1, 2001; 23(3): 349 - 374. [Abstract] [PDF]

				I. A. Connidis, C. J. Rosenthal, and J. A. Mcmullin The Impact of Family Composition on Providing Help to Older Parents: A Study of Employed Adults Research on Aging, December 1, 1996; 18(4): 402 - 429. [Abstract]

				G. C. Brice, K. M. Gorey, R. M. Hall, and S. Angelino The STAYWELL Program-Maximizing Elders' Capacity for Independent Living Through Health Promotion and Disease Prevention Activities: A Quasi-Experimental Evaluation of its Efficacy Research on Aging, June 1, 1996; 18(2): 202 - 218. [Abstract]

				D. L. Wagner and G. G. Hunt The Use of Workplace Eldercare Programs by Employed Caregivers Research on Aging, March 1, 1994; 16(1): 69 - 84. [Abstract]

				S. L. Tennstedt and J. G. Gonyea An Agenda for Work and Eldercare Research: Methodological Challenges and Future Directions Research on Aging, March 1, 1994; 16(1): 85 - 108. [Abstract]