CHANGES AMONG COLLEGE STUDENTS’ ATTITUDES, KNOWLEDGE, AND INTENTION TO WORK WITH OLDER ADULTS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Curricular intervention studies have examined if instruction in aging and gerontology affects undergraduates’ attitudes, knowledge, and perceptions toward older adults. However, less is known about the curricular impact on undergraduates’ intentions to work with older adults and attitudes and knowledge about sexuality and aging. The current longitudinal study examined the impact of an upper-level adult development psychology course on student attitudes, knowledge, and intentions toward working with older adults. Participants were 8 undergraduate students enrolled in upper-level undergraduate psychology courses. Participants completed validated, self-report questionnaires at the beginning of the semester and at the end of the semester related to their attitudes towards working with older adults, ageism attitudes, aging sexual knowledge and attitudes, and attitudes and knowledge about aging. Paired samples t-tests were used to examine changes in main outcome variables. Students endorsed significantly greater attitudes toward working with older adults at the end of the semester (t = -2.57, p = .037). Additionally, knowledge about sexual aging significantly increased (t = 2.62, p = 0.34). These findings suggest curricular interventions may positively impact attitudes toward working with older adults and sexual aging knowledge. Future work will evaluate predictors of change in attitudes, knowledge, and intentions. By identifying factors that increase undergraduates’ intentions to work with older adults and improve attitudes and knowledge regarding sexual aging, we may elucidate meaningful points of intervention to enhance the pursuit of careers in the geriatric workforce.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".