De Lange Annet H, Van der Heijden Beatrice, Van Vuuren Tinka, Furunes Trude, De Lange Christiane, Dikkers Josje
Department of Human Resource Management, HAN University of Applied Sciences, Nijmegen, Netherlands.
Department of Psychology, Universidade da Coruna, A Coruña, Spain.
Front Psychol. 2021 Feb 5;11:605684. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.605684. eCollection 2020.
This systematic review aimed to provide an overview of earlier research on the relationships between age conceptualizations (i.e., calendar age, organizational age, lifespan age, psychosocial age, and functional age) and indicators of employability. We have conducted a systematic literature search using PsycINFO, Academic Search Premier, Business Source Complete, CINAHL, ERIC, MEDLINE, and Science Direct. Two raters evaluated the articles and subsequently distinguished = 41 studies that met the inclusion criteria for this systematic review. Our review revealed that many researchers adopted different operationalizations to measure employability (15 studies were based on an input- or competence-based measure of employability, 23 studies included an output- or labor market-based measure of employability, and three studies included a combination of both measures). Moreover, most studies included calendar age (40 studies, 97.6%) as indicator of aging at work, and were based on a cross-sectional design (34 studies, 82.9%; 17.1% a longitudinal design). Based on the Standardized Index of Convergence (SIC) method, different types of evidence were found for the relationships between age and the employability measures. For relationships between psychosocial age and lifespan age, on the one hand, and employability measures, on the other hand, too few studies were found to draw conclusions. Yet, for relationships between calendar age and labor market-based measures strong consistent negative relationships were found across the studies, and moderately strong positive relationships were found for functional age and labor market- based measures. For organizational age and both competence-based as well as labor market-based measures moderately strong negative relationships were found. We discuss the implications of these results and propose a research agenda for future studies.
本系统综述旨在概述早期关于年龄概念（即日历年龄、组织年龄、寿命年龄、心理社会年龄和功能年龄）与就业能力指标之间关系的研究。我们使用PsycINFO、学术搜索高级版、商业资源完整版、护理学与健康领域数据库、教育资源信息中心、医学期刊数据库和科学Direct进行了系统的文献检索。两名评估人员对文章进行了评估，随后筛选出41项符合本系统综述纳入标准的研究。我们的综述发现，许多研究人员采用了不同的操作方法来衡量就业能力（15项研究基于就业能力的投入或能力衡量标准，23项研究纳入了基于产出或劳动力市场的就业能力衡量标准，3项研究同时包含了这两种衡量标准）。此外，大多数研究将日历年龄（40项研究，占97.6%）作为工作中衰老的指标，并且基于横断面设计（34项研究，占82.9%；17.1%为纵向设计）。基于标准化收敛指数（SIC）方法，发现了年龄与就业能力衡量标准之间关系的不同类型证据。一方面，心理社会年龄和寿命年龄与就业能力衡量标准之间的关系，另一方面，发现的研究太少，无法得出结论。然而，对于日历年龄与基于劳动力市场的衡量标准之间的关系，在各项研究中发现了强烈一致的负相关关系，而对于功能年龄与基于劳动力市场的衡量标准之间发现了中度强烈的正相关关系。对于组织年龄与基于能力以及基于劳动力市场的衡量标准之间，发现了中度强烈的负相关关系。我们讨论了这些结果的含义，并为未来的研究提出了研究议程。
