Comparative effectiveness of intergenerational service-learning programs on student outcomes of knowledge, attitude, and ageism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Intergenerational service-learning for undergraduate students seeks to generate interest about the older adult population, while increasing knowledge and improving attitudes about aging and reducing ageism. It is difficult to make an impact on students’ views in a short time period, such as an academic quarter. This comparative effectiveness study evaluated the efficacy of a 10-week intergenerational service-learning program administered to Psychology of Aging undergraduates to determine if it increased knowledge about aging, improved attitudes about older adults, and reduced ageism more than a predominately didactic course with less service activity. A quasi-experimental design using a convenience sample compared pre- and posttest scores between the experimental intervention (n = 68) and comparison (n = 71) condition on The Facts on Aging Quiz Multiple Choice version, Aging Semantic Differential, and Fabroni Scale on Ageism. The experimental intervention, the Lives Well Lived program, matched students and older adults who met criteria for “successful aging,” in a mutual interviewing, life review project utilizing documentary film, photography, and creation of memoirs. Results determined that students in the experimental intervention showed less stereotypical beliefs and net bias about aging. Programs that are more relational, in-depth, more experiential and less didactic may be useful for consideration in undergraduate psychology or human service programs in reducing ageism and potential for increasing interest in careers in the field of aging.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".