Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Hardship Among Older Adults in the HRS: Exploring Measurement Differences Across Socio-Demographic Characteristics

Race and Social Problems Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Cite this article

Abstract

Measures of hardship have been proffered as better indicators of economic well-being than traditional measures of socioeconomic status (SES). However, there is a dearth of research on latent factor structures and measurement bias in items assessing hardship across socio-demographic characteristics, especially among older adults. As such, the purpose of this study was to determine the factor structure of items measuring hardship in the Health and Retirement Study (HRS) and to determine measurement bias across socio-demographic groups (i.e., race/ethnicity, gender, and age). The participants were HRS subjects who completed an additional psychosocial survey (N = 3074). The results revealed a single latent factor for hardship (comparative fit index = 0.99, root mean square error of approximation = 0.02) using confirmatory factor analysis on eight items in the HRS. The multiple indicator, multiple causes (MIMIC) model was used to determine measurement bias in the items due to socio-demographic characteristics. Compared to white respondents, black respondents were more likely to endorse items of financial dissatisfaction (Odds Ratio (OR) = 2.19, 95 % Confidence Interval (CI) = 1.43, 3.35), while Latino respondents were more likely to endorse food insecurity (OR = 2.78, 95 % CI = 1.60, 4.83); and older individuals (age 65 and older) were less likely to endorse having moved to a worse residence/neighborhood (OR = 0.32, CI = 0.18, 0.57) and being unemployed (OR = 0.28, CI = 0.20, 0.38). These results indicate that there is differential item functioning for specific measures of hardship suggesting that there are differences observed for the measurement of hardship for these items across racial/ethnic and age groups.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The SES ladder is referenced in the previous question on the HRS survey.

References

  • Barrera, M., Jr., Caples, H., & Tein, J. Y. (2001). The psychological sense of economic hardship: measurement models, validity, and cross-ethnic equivalence for urban families. American Journal of Community Psychology, 29, 493–517.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bauman, K. (1998). Direct measures of poverty as indicators of economic need: Evidence from the survey of income and program participation. Population division, U.S. Bureau of the Census, Technical Working Paper No. 30

  • Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bentler, P. M., & Chou, C. P. (1987). Practical issues in structural modeling. Sociological Methods & Research, 16, 78–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beverly, S. G. (2000). Using measures of material hardship to assess well-being. Focus, 21, 65–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beverly, S. G. (2001a). Material hardship in the United States: Evidence from the survey of income and program participation. Social Work Research, 25, 143–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beverly, S. G. (2001b). Measures of material hardship: Rationale and recommendations. Journal of Poverty, 5, 23–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borrell, L. N., Jacobs, D. R., Jr., Williams, D. R., Pletcher, M. J., Houston, T. K., & Kiefe, C. I. (2007). Self-reported racial discrimination and substance use in the coronary artery risk development in adults study. American Journal of Epidemiology, 166, 1068–1079.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boushey H, Brocht C, Gundersen B, Bernstein J. (2001). The hardships low-income families face. In Hardships in America: The real story of working families (pp. 19–43). Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute.

  • Brown, M., & Cudek, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. Bollen & J. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carle, A. C., Bauman, K. J., & Short, K. (2009). Assessing the measurement and structure of material hardship in the United States. Social Indicators Research, 92, 35–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clarke, P., Fisher, G., House, J., Smith, J., & Weir, D. (2007). Guide to content of the HRS psychosocial leave-behind participant lifestyle questionnaires: 2004 & 2006. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan, Survey Research Center, Institute for Social Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Colasanto, D., Kapteyn, A., & Van Der Gaag, J. (1984). Two subjective definitions of poverty: Results from the Wisconsin Basic Needs Study. The Journal of Human Resources, 19, 127–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cole, S. R., Kawachi, I., Maller, S. J., & Berkman, L. F. (2000). Test of item-response bias in the CES-D scale. Experience from the new haven EPESE study. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 53, 285–289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dailey, A. B., Kasl, S. V., Holford, T. R., Lewis, T. T., & Jones, B. A. (2010). Neighborhood- and individual-level socioeconomic variation in perceptions of racial discrimination. Ethnicity & Health, 15, 145–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drentea, P., & Lavrakas, P. J. (2000). Over the limit: The association among health, race and debt. Social Science and Medicine, 50, 517–529.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farmer, M. M., & Ferraro, K. F. (2005). Are racial disparities in health conditional on socioeconomic status? Social Science and Medicine, 60, 191–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fitzpatrick, T., Rosella, L. C., Calzavara, A., et al. (2015). Looking beyond income and education: Socioeconomic status gradients among future high-cost users of health care. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 49, 161–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • George, L. K. (1992). Economic status and subjective well-being: A review of the literature and an agenda for future research. In N. E. Cutler, D. W. Gregg, & M. P. Lawton (Eds.), Aging, money, and life satisfaction: Aspects of financial gerontology (pp. 69–99). New York: Springer Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansen, T., Slagsvold, B., & Moum, T. (2008). Financial satisfaction in old age: A satisfaction paradox or a result of accumulated wealth? Social Indicators Research, 89, 323–347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • He, W., Sengupta, M., Velkoff, V. A., DeBarros, K. A., & U.S. Census Bureau. (2005). 65+ in the United States, 2005. Current population reports (pp. 23–209). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Health and Retirement Study (HRS2004) public use dataset. (2004). Produced and distributed by the University of Michigan with funding from the National Institute on Aging (Grant Number NIA U01AG009749). Ann Arbor, MI

  • Heflin, C., Sandberg, J., & Rafail, P. (2009). The structure of material hardship in US households: An examination of the coherence behind common measures of well-being. Social Problems, 56, 746–764.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joreskog, K., & Goldberger, A. (1975). Estimation of a model of mutliple indicators and multiple causes of a single latent variable. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 70, 631–639.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahn, J. R., & Fazio, E. M. (2005). Economic status over the life course and racial disparities in health. The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 60(2), 76–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahn, J. R., & Pearlin, L. I. (2006). Financial strain over the life course and health among older adults. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 47, 17–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, T. T., Yang, F. M., Jacobs, E. A., & Fitchett, G. (2012). Racial/ethnic differences in responses to the everyday discrimination scale: A differential item functioning analysis. American Journal of Epidemiology, 175, 391–401.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marshall, G. L. (2015). Financial hardship in later life: Social work’s challenge or opportunity. Social Work, 60, 265–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, S. E., & Jencks, C. (1989). Poverty and the distribution of material hardship. The Journal of Human Resources, 24, 88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meredith, W., & Teresi, J. A. (2006). An essay on measurement and factorial invariance. Medical Care, 44, S69–S77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mirowsky, J., & Ross, C. E. (1999). Economic hardship across the lifecourse. American Sociological Review, 64, 548–569.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2008) Mplus Version 5.2. Los Angeles: Muthén & Muthén.

  • Muthen, B. (1989). Latent variable modeling in heterogeneous populations. Psychometrika, 54, 557–585.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muthen, B. O., & Muthen, L. K. (2000). The development of heavy drinking and alcohol-related problems from ages 18–37 in a US national sample. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 61, 290–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osterlind, S. J., & Everson, H. T. (2009). Differential item functioning (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ouellette, T., Burstein, N., Long, D., & Beecroft, E. (2004). Measures of material hardship, final report. Washington, DC: U.S. Health and Human Services.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pearlin, L. I. (1989). The sociological study of stress. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 30, 241–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pearlin, L. I., Lieberman, M. A., Menaghan, E. G., & Mullan, J. T. (1981). The stress process. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 22, 337–356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pearlin, L. I., & Schooler, C. (1978). The structure of coping. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 19, 2–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pilkonis, P. A., Choi, S. W., Reise, S. P., Stover, A. M., Riley, W. T., & Cella, D. (2011). Item banks for measuring emotional distress from the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS(R)): depression, anxiety, and anger. Assessment, 18, 263–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Polit, D. F., & Yang, F. M. (2015). Measurement and the measurement of change. Baltimore, MD: Lippincott, Williams, and Wilkins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rector, R. E., Johnson, K. A., & Youssef, S. E. (1999). The extent of material hardship and poverty in the United States. Review of Social Economy, 57, 351–387.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rose, R. A., Parish, S. L., & Yoo, J. P. (2009). Measuring material hardship among the US population of women with disabilities using latent class analysis. Social Indicators Research, 94, 391–415.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Satcher, D., & Higginbotham, E. J. (2008). The public health approach to eliminating disparities in health. American Journal of Public Health, 98, 400–403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shavers, V. L. (2007). Measurement of socioeconomic status in health disparities research. Journal of the National Medical Association, 99, 1013–1023.

    Google Scholar 

  • Short, K. S. (2005). Material and financial hardship and income-based poverty measures in the USA. Journal of Social Policy, 34, 21–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, L. L. (2016). On the usefulness of item bais analysis to personality psychology. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 754–763.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, T. R., Williams, C. D., Makambi, K. H., et al. (2007). Racial discrimination and breast cancer incidence in US black women: The black women’s health study. American Journal of Epidemiology, 166, 46–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tucker-Seeley, R. D., Li, Y., Subramanian, S. V., & Sorensen, G. (2009). Financial hardship and mortality among older adults using the 1996–2004 health and retirement study. Annals of Epidemiology, 19, 850–857.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vinokur, A. D., Price, R. H., & Caplan, R. D. (1996). Hard times and hurtful partners: How financial strain affects depression and relationship satisfaction of unemployed persons and their spouses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 166–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, D. R., & Collins, C. (1995). US socioeconomic and racial differences in health: patterns and explanations. Annual Review of Sociology, 21, 349–386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muthen, B. O., Khoo, S. T., & Francis, D. (1998). Multi-stage analysis of sequential developmental processes to study reading progress: New methodological developments using general growth mixture modeling. Los Angeles, CA: UCLA Center for the Study of Evaluation, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yang, F. M., Heslin, K. C., Mehta, K. M., et al. (2011). A comparison of item response theory-based methods for examining differential item functioning in object naming test by language of assessment among older Latinos. Psychological Test and Assessment Modeling, 53, 440–460.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yang, F. M., & Jones, R. N. (2007). Center for epidemiologic studies-depression scale (CES-D) item response bias found with Mantel-Haenszel method was successfully replicated using latent variable modeling. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 60, 1195–1200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang, F. M., & Jones, R. N. (2008). Measurement differences in depression: Chronic health-related and sociodemographic effects in older Americans. Psychosomatic Medicine, 70, 993–1004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang, F. M., & Kao, S. T. (2014). Item response theory for measurement validity. Shanghai Archives of Psychiatry, 26, 171–177.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yang, F. M., Tommet, D., & Jones, R. N. (2009). Disparities in self-reported geriatric depressive symptoms due to sociodemographic differences: An extension of the bi-factor item response theory model for use in differential item functioning. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 43, 1025–1035.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Center for Community-Based Research, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA

    Reginald D. Tucker-Seeley

  2. School of Social Work, University of Washington-Tacoma, Tacoma, WA, USA

    Gillian Marshall

  3. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Georgia Regents University, Augusta, GA, USA

    Frances Yang

Authors
  1. Reginald D. Tucker-Seeley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gillian Marshall
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Frances Yang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Reginald D. Tucker-Seeley.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tucker-Seeley, R.D., Marshall, G. & Yang, F. Hardship Among Older Adults in the HRS: Exploring Measurement Differences Across Socio-Demographic Characteristics. Race Soc Probl 8, 222–230 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12552-016-9180-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12552-016-9180-y

Keywords

search

Navigation