| Name |
|---|
| Tesch-Römer, Clemens |
| Motel-Klingebiel, Andreas |
| von Kondratowitz, Hans-Joachim |
| Title | Old Age and Autonomy: The Role of Service Systems and Intergenerational Family Solidarity. Primary data of the european study OASIS |
|---|---|
| Original Title | Old Age and Autonomy: The Role of Service Systems and Intergenerational Family Solidarity. Primärdaten zur Europäischen Studie OASIS |
| Citation | Tesch-Römer, C., Motel-Klingebiel, A., & von Kondratowitz, H.-J. (2009). Old Age and Autonomy: The Role of Service Systems and Intergenerational Family Solidarity. Primary data of the european study OASIS [Translated Title] (Version 1.0.0) [Data and Documentation]. Trier: Center for Research Data in Psychology: PsychData of the Leibniz Institute for Psychology Information ZPID. https://doi.org/10.5160/psychdata.thcs01ol03 |
| Language of variable documentation | German/English |
| Responsible for Data Collection | Motel-Klingebiel, Andreas;Tesch-Römer, Clemens;von Kondratowitz, Hans-Joachim |
| Data Collection Completion Date | 2001 |
| Dataset Publication | 2009 |
| Dataset ID | thcs01ol03 |
| Study Description | The OASIS project ("Old Age and Autonomy: The Role of Service Systems and Intergenerational Family Solidarity") analyses the informal and formal provision of help and support to the elderly in a welfare state comparative perspective. The focus of the project is on the relation between intergenerational family help and welfare state support. While the “substitution” hypothesis states that generous provision of welfare state services crowds out family help to older people, the “encouragement” hypothesis predicts the crowding in of family help, and the hypothesis of “mixed responsibility” predicts a combination of help and support by families and services. The OASIS data set is based on an age stratified random sample of the urban population (25-102 years) in Norway, England, Germany, Spain, and Israel (n=6,106). This data set allows the analysis of the interactions between societal micro and macro levels. Results show that total help received by the elderly is more extensive in welfare states with a strong infrastructure of formal services. Moreover, statistical controls for social structure, preferences and familial opportunity structures yield no evidence of any substantial crowding out of family help. These results support the hypothesis of “mixed responsibility”: In societies with well-developed service infrastructures, help from families and welfare state services act accumulatively; such mixes do not occur in familialistic welfare regimes. |
| Hypotheses | 1. The “substitution” hypothesis states that generous provision of welfare state services crowds out family help to older people
2. The “encouragement” hypothesis predicts the crowding in of family help 3. The hypothesis of “mixed responsibility” predicts a combination of help and support by families and services. |
| Keyphrase | welfare state & family & old age & autonomy & intergenerational support & comparative analysis & primary data
|
| Funding | European Commission |
| Rating | - |
| Classification | Psychosocial & Personality Development Social Structure & Organization Health & Mental Health Services |
|---|---|
| Controlled Terms | Aging Family Cross Cultural Differences Intergenerational Relations Social Support Welfare Services (Government) Government Family Relations Independence (Personality) Personality Data Collection |
| Research Method Description | Questionnaire Data |
|---|---|
| Classification of Data Collection | Fully Standardized Survey Instrument (provides question formulation and answer options) |
| Research Instrument | The international OASIS questionnaire was drawn up in an intensive cooperation of all research teams participating in the OASIS study. The research teams decided to choose, wherever possible, instruments that were already well established and tested in several countries, cultures and research contexts. The number of instruments was reduced to those that emerge directly from the conceptual model. Shortened versions of research instruments, if existing, were preferred over long versions. The OASIS questionnaires used in the five countries all consist of two main parts: The standardised international survey instrument and some nation specific add-ins. The survey instrument contains questions in 15 research areas: Socio-demographic data, House and environment, Occupational activity and socio-economic status, Health and functional ability, Help and services, Children, Parents, Other family members, Social relationships, Norms and values, Preferences, Coping, Quality of life, Income, Miscellaneous. The main instruments included in the OASIS questionnaire are: the scale on physical functioning taken from the SF 36 Health Survey instrument (Ware & Sherbourne, 1992; Gladman, 1998); The Family Solidarity and Conflict scales (Mangen et al., 1988); Intergenerational Ambivalence (Luescher et al., 1999); Flexible Goal Adjustment scale (Brandstädter & Renner, 1990); Filial Responsibility Scales (Lee et al., 1994), The WHOQOL Quality of Life scale (WHOQOL Group, 1994a, WHOQOL Group, 1994b, WHOQOL Group, 1998a; World Health Organization, 1996; World Health Organization, 1998b), the PANAS - Positive and Negative Affect scale (Watson et al., 1988), as well as scales developed especially for the project like the Help and Use of Services. |
| Data Collection Method | Data collection in the presence of an experimenter
- Individual Administration - Paper and Pencil |
| Time Points | single measurement |
| Survey Time Period | - |
| Characteristics | - |
| Population | The survey sample was drawn as a representative, stratified sample of the urban population of age 25 and older living in private households in the participating countries (Norway, England, Germany, Spain, Israel). People of age 75 and older were overrepresented in the survey sample to have a sufficient number of cases also for age-specific analyses. To adjust for this post-stratification weights were applied. Parameters for the entire population are presented. In Norway and Israel all three available urban areas were included. In Spain all urban units with 100,000 and more inhabitants were researched, while in England and Germany a selection of such urban areas was made (England: selection of six major regions with 120 wards which were considered as representative for the English urban areas, Germany: random selection of 31 urban regions within 16 states). |
| Experimental Pool | Individuals |
| Sample | Stratified, systematic sample |
| Subject Recruitment | Sampling strategies in respect to participants differed in the participating countries. The goal was to optimise the sampling according to national best practice (Spain, Israel: random route procedure, German: random sampling based on municipality registries; Norway: mixture of random route and register sampling; England: use of electoral registers combined with the Monica coding system). |
| Sample Size | 6106 individuals |
| Return/Drop Out | - |
| Gender Distribution | Depending on country (n per country approximately 1,200): Percentage of female subjects:
Norway: 59,6% England: 68,3 % Germany: 69,2 % Spain: 65,5 % Israel:54,1 % |
| Age Distribution | 25-102 years |
| Special Groups | - |
| Country | Norway, England, Germany, Spain, Israel |
| Region | - |
| City | - |
| Variables | Subject ID
Demographics (Interview start,-end, countries, sex, year of birth, marital status, questions concerning living together with others) House and Environment Socioeconomic Status (schooling, vocational training, occupation, partner´s occupation) Health and functional ability SF 36 Health Survey Instrument Help and Use of Services (home care, transport|shopping, personal care) from family, social services or other, frequency Intergenerational Family Solidarity and Conflict scales (children: number, sex, adopted, age, marital status, children, occupation, distance, contact, help given, help received, conflicts) Intergenerational Family Solidarity and Conflict scales (parents: age, marital status, living together, occupation, distance, contact, conflicts, help given, help received) Intergenerational Family Solidarity and Conflict scales (siblings, grandchildren, grandparents: number, distance, contact, help given, help received) Intergenerational Ambivalence Social network (friends, club membership) Attitudes towards the Family-Welfare State Balance Filial Responsibility Scale Attitudes towards Financing of Long-term Care Preferences for Care and Housing Flexible Goal Adjustment scale PANAS - Positive and Negative Affect scale The WHOQOL-BREF Quality of Life Scale short version Satisfaction with support from family Satisfaction with financial situation General Satisfaction with Life Feelings of Loneliness Income National/regional origin Religion Political Orientation Questions concerning age, family generations |
| Data Status | Complete Data Set |
|---|---|
| Original Records | Questionnaire filled out by either the subject or the experimenter containing closed and/or open answers |
| Transformation | Data from the subjects were coded and then immediately transferred into a machine-readable form |
| Description | Primary data file |
|---|---|
| File Name | thcs01ol03_pd.txt |
| Data Content | 6106 subjects, 795 variables |
| Data Points | 6106*795= 4854270 data points |
| Variables | Subject ID (1) Demographics (Interview start,-end, countries, sex, year of birth, marital status, questions concerning living together with others)(25) House and Environment (14) Socioeconomic Status (schooling, vocational training, occupation, partner´s occupation) (24) Health and functional ability (2) SF 36 Health Survey Instrument (11) Help and Use of Services (home care, transport|shopping, personal care) from family, social services or other, frequency (93) Intergenerational Family Solidarity and Conflict scales (children: number, sex, adopted, age, marital status, children, occupation, distance, contact, help given, help received, conflicts) (361) Intergenerational Family Solidarity and Conflict scales (parents: age, marital status, living together, occupation, distance, contact, conflicts, help given, help received)(121) Intergenerational Family Solidarity and Conflict scales (siblings, grandchildren, grandparents: number, distance, contact, help given, help received)(29) Intergenerational Ambivalence (6) Social network (friends, club membership) (4) Attitudes towards the Family-Welfare State Balance (4) Filial Responsibility Scale (5) Attitudes towards Financing of Long-term Care (5) Preferences for Care and Housing (21) Flexible Goal Adjustment scale (5) PANAS - Positive and Negative Affect scale (10) The WHOQOL-BREF Quality of Life Scale short version (26) Satisfaction with support from family (1) Satisfaction with financial situation (1) General Satisfaction with Life (1) Feelings of Loneliness (1) Income (6) National/regional origin (10) Religion (3) Political Orientation (1) Questions concerning age, family generations (4) Post stratification weights (1) |
| MD5 Hash | e9d8fbc209e9bfac750aea1aafc543bc |
| Description | File Name |
|---|---|
| English codebook of primary data file thcs01ol03_pd.txt | thcs01ol03_kb_e.txt |
| German codebook of primary data file thcs01ol03_pd.txt | thcs01ol03_kb_d.txt |
| Publications Directly Related to the Dataset |
|---|
| Motel-Klingebiel, A., Kondratowitz, H.-J. & Tesch-Römer, C. (2004). Social inequality in old age - comparative views on quality of life of older people. European Journal of Ageing, 1, 6-14. |
| Motel-Klingebiel, A., Tesch-Roemer, C., & Kondratowitz, H.-J. v. (2005). Welfare states do not crowd out the family: Evidence for mixed responsibility from comparative analyses. Ageing & Society, 25, 863-882. |
| Motel-Klingebiel, Andreas (2007): Quality of life in old age, inequality and welfare state reform. Empirical comparisons between Norway, Germany and England. In: Mollenkopf, H.; Walker, A. (Hrsg.): Quality of life in old age. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers. |
| Motel-Klingebiel, Andreas; Tesch-Roemer, Clemens (2006): Familie im Wohlfahrtsstaat. Zwischen Verdrängung und gemischter Verantwortung. Zeitschrift für Familienforschung, 18, 290-314. |
| Tesch-Römer, C. (2004). Universal Accommodation? Cross-cultural notes on Brandtstädter's developmental theory of action. In W. Greve, K. Rothermund & D. Wentura (Eds.), The adaptive self: Personal continuity and intentional self-development. Göttingen: Hogrefe. |
| Tesch-Römer, C., Motel-Klingebiel, A. & Kondratowitz, H.-J. v. (2007). Kultur- und gesellschaftsvergleichende Forschung: Erträge für die Gerontologie. In H.W. Wahl & H. Mollenkopf (Hrsg.), Alternsforschung am Beginn des 21. Jahrhunderts. Alterns- und Lebenslaufkonzeptionen im deutschsprachigen Raum. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.Datensatz 0197362 |
| Tesch-Römer, C., Motel-Klingebiel, A. & Kondratowitz, H.-J.v. (2002). Die Bedeutung der Familie für die Lebensqualität alter Menschen im Gesellschafts- und Kulturvergleich. Zeitschrift für Gerontologie und Geriatrie, 35, 335-342.Datensatz 0157021 |
| Utilized Test Methods |
|---|
| Brandstädter, J. & Renner, G. (1990). Tenacious goal pursuit and flexible goal adjustment: Explication and age-related analysis of assimilative and accommodative strategies of coping. Psychology and Aging, 5,1,58-67.Datensatz 0046616 |
| Gladman, J.R.F. (1998). Assessing health status with the SF-36.Age and Ageing, 27,3. |
| Lee, G.R., Netzer, J.K., & Coward, R.T. (1994). Filial responsibility expectations and patterns of intergenerational assistance. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 56, 559-565. |
| Luescher, K., Bohmer, S., Lettke, F., & Pajung-Bilger, B. (1999). Intergenerational relationships in the Konstanz region. Survey of selected families. University of Konstanz, social science faculty, research center "Society and family". |
| Mangen, D.J., Bengtson, V.L., & Landry, Jr.P.H. (1988). Measurement of intergenerational relations. Beverly Hills: Sage. |
| Ware, J.E., & Sherbourne, C.D. (1992). The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). Medical Care, 30, 6, 473-483). |
| Watson, D., Clark, L.A., & Tellegan, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS-Scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063-1070. |
| WHOQOL Group. (1994a). Development of the WHOQOL: Rationale and current status. International Journal of Mental Health, 23(24-56). |
| WHOQOL Group. (1994b). The development of the World Health Organization quality of life assessment instrument (WHOQOL). In J. Orley & W. Kuyken (Eds.), Quality of life assessments: International perspectives (pp. 41-57). Berlin: Springer. |
| WHOQOL Group. (1998a). Development of The World Health Organization WHOQOL-Bref Quality of Life Assessment. Psychological Medicine, 28, 551-558. |
| WHOQOL Group. (1998b). The World Health Organization Quality of Life Assessment (WHOQOL): Development and General Psychometric Properties. Social Science and Medicine, 46, 1569-1585. |
| World Health Organization. (1996). WHOQOL-Bref - Introduction, Administration, Scoring and Generic Version of the Assessment. Field Trial Version, December 1996. Genf: World Health Organization - Programme on Mental Health. |
| Further Reading |
|---|
| Daatland, Svein Olav; Motel-Klingebiel, Andreas (2007): Separating the local and the general in cross-cultural aging research. In: Wahl, Hans-Werner; Tesch-Römer, Clemens; Hoff, Andreas (Hrsg.): New Dynamics in Old Age: Individual, Environmental and Societal Perspectives. Amityville, New York: Baywood.Datensatz 0194177 |
| Hoff, A. & Tesch-Römer, C. (2006). Family relations and ageing – substantial changes since the middle of the last century? In H.-W. Wahl, C. Tesch-Römer & A. Hoff (Eds.), New dynamics in old age: individual, environmental and societal perspectives. Amityville, NY: Baywood Publishing. |
| Kondratowitz, H.-J.v., Tesch-Römer, C. & Motel-Klingebiel, A. (2002). Establishing systems of care in Germany: a long and winding road. Ageing Clinical and Experimental Research, 14, 239-246 (Special Issue on Systems of Care). |
| Tesch-Römer, C. & Kondratowitz, H.-J.v. (2006). Comparative ageing research: a flourishing field in need of theoretical cultivation. European Journal of Ageing, 3, 155-167.Datensatz 0191453 |
| Tesch-Römer, C. & Kondratowitz, H.-J.v. (2007). Entwicklung über die Lebensspanne im kulturellen und gesellschaftlichen Kontext. In J. Brandtstädter und U. Lindenberger (Hrsg.), Entwicklungspsychologie des Erwachsenenalters. Ein Lehrbuch. Göttingen: Hogrefe.Datensatz 0188008 |