| Literature DB >> 27048696 |
Mai Stafford1, Dorly Deeg2, Diana Kuh3.
Abstract
Using data from 1,184 women in the MRC National Survey of Health and Development, we estimated associations between education and Ryff's environmental mastery scale scores at age 52. Confirmatory factor analysis indicated two subscales, here termed mastery skills and mastery accomplishments. Low education was associated with higher mastery skills. This was partly explained by childhood socioeconomic position, as mastery was lower among those with fathers in the most and least advantaged occupational classes. Education was not associated with mastery accomplishments in unadjusted models. Lower ambitions for family/home were associated with higher mastery accomplishments and may have partly suppressed as an association between education and mastery accomplishments. This study highlights childhood as well as adult correlates of mastery and adds to mounting evidence that higher mastery is not universally found among those who are more educated.Entities:
Keywords: control; life course; mental well-being; prospective; self-efficacy
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27048696 PMCID: PMC4831032 DOI: 10.1177/0091415016641687
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Aging Hum Dev ISSN: 0091-4150
Figure 1.Conceptual model linking education to midlife mastery.
Standardized Factor Loadings From Single-Factor and Two-Factor Measurement Models of Ryff’s Environmental Mastery Scale Included in the MRC National Survey of Health and Development at Age 52.
| Single-factor measurement model | Two-factor measurement model | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Environmental mastery | Factor loadinga | Environmental mastery skills | Factor loadinga |
| I am quite good at managing the many responsibilities of my daily life | 0.73 | I am quite good at managing the many responsibilities of my daily life | 0.80 |
| I generally do a good job of taking care of my personal finances and affairs | 0.60 | I generally do a good job of taking care of my personal finances and affairs | 0.64 |
| I am good at juggling my time so that I can fit everything in that needs to be done | 0.60 | I am good at juggling my time so that I can fit everything in that needs to be done | 0.65 |
| I have been able to build a home and a lifestyle for myself that is much to my liking | 0.70 | Environmental mastery accomplishments | |
| 0.55 | I have been able to build a home and a lifestyle for myself that is much to my liking | 0.75 | |
| 0.68 | 0.58 | ||
| 0.74 | |||
| Goodness-of-fit statistics | |||
| RMSEA | 0.168 | 0.085 | |
| CFI | 0.865 | 0.970 | |
| TLI | 0.882 | 0.970 | |
| Chi-squared ( | 274.53(8) | 66.26(7) | |
Note: RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; CFI = comparative fit index; TLI = Tucker–Lewis index. Italicized items were reverse coded before analysis so high scores indicate high well-being; Standardized.
Characteristics of Women From the MRC National Survey of Health and Development Who Completed the Mastery Scale as Part of the Women’s Health Questionnaire at Age 52.a
| All women | Percentage of women with low educationb | Percentage of women with high education | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Education at age 26 | ||||
| None | 430 (38) | |||
| O-level or lower | 317 (28) | |||
| A-level or equivalent | 297 (27) | |||
| Degree of higher | 76 (7) | |||
| Adult circumstances | ||||
| Number of sweeps in paid work to age 52 | <0.001 | |||
| 0 | 28 (3) | 4 | 1 | |
| 1 | 93 (9) | 10 | 7 | |
| 2 | 209 (21) | 22 | 19 | |
| 3 | 394 (40) | 41 | 38 | |
| 4 | 263 (27) | 23 | 35 | |
| Working life rated as rewarding | <0.001 | |||
| Very rewarding | 362 (32) | 27 | 43 | |
| Somewhat rewarding | 551 (48) | 48 | 45 | |
| Not rewarding/never in paid work | 235 (20) | 25 | 11 | |
| Financial difficulties in last 12 months at age 52 | 0.001 | |||
| Sometimes/often | 226 (19) | 22 | 14 | |
| No | 956 (81) | 78 | 86 | |
| Serious difficulties with partner/spouse | Yes vs. No 0.2 | |||
| Yes | 173 (15) | 16 | 12 | |
| No | 902 (76) | 77 | 76 | |
| No partner/spouse | 102 (9) | 7 | 12 | |
| Serious difficulties with any children | Yes vs. No 0.08 | |||
| Yes | 130 (11) | 10 | 13 | |
| No | 905 (77) | 79 | 72 | |
| No children | 143 (12) | 11 | 15 | |
| Serious difficulties with parent or other relative | 0.9 | |||
| Yes | 336 (29) | 28 | 29 | |
| No | 839 (71) | 72 | 71 | |
| Physical health change in last 12 months at age 52 | 0.3 | |||
| Better/no change | 893 (76) | 75 | 77 | |
| Worse | 282 (24) | 25 | 23 | |
| Nervous and emotional state change in last 12 months at age 52 | 0.8 | |||
| Better/no change | 927 (79) | 79 | 78 | |
| Worse | 248 (21) | 21 | 22 | |
| Goals | ||||
| Ambitions for family/home life at age 43 | <0.001 | |||
| Nothing more to achieve | 283 (26) | 31 | 16 | |
| Something/much more to achieve | 811 (74) | 69 | 84 | |
| Ambitions for working life at age 43 | <0.001 | |||
| Nothing more to achieve | 375 (35) | 41 | 22 | |
| Something/much more to achieve | 692 (65) | 59 | 78 | |
| Childhood circumstances | ||||
| Father’s social class | <0.001 | |||
| I (Professional) | 82 (7) | 2 | 18 | |
| II (Managerial and technical) | 208 (19) | 15 | 26 | |
| IIINM (Skilled nonmanual) | 241 (22) | 17 | 29 | |
| IIIM (Skilled manual) | 317 (28) | 35 | 15 | |
| IV (Partly skilled) | 220 (20) | 25 | 10 | |
| V (Unskilled) | 53 (5) | 7 | 1 |
Numbers are based on maximum available sample for each covariate. bLow education defined as O-level or lower qualifications (typically obtained at age 16); cTest for difference by educational level based on chi-squared test.
Relationship of Midlife Mastery Skills to Education Based on n = 1,184 Women in the MRC National Survey of Health and Development.
| Model 1: Education only | Model 2: Tangible benefits | Model 3: Goals | Model 4: Childhood circumstances | Model 5: Fully adjusted | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Low education at age 26 | 0.158* | 0.203* | 0.142* | 0.122* | 0.150* |
| Sweeps in paid work to age 52 | −0.042 | −0.038 | |||
| Working life not rewarding/no job | −0.147* | −0.156* | |||
| Working life somewhat rewarding | −0.087* | −0.081* | |||
| Financial difficulties at age 52 | −0.193* | −0.188* | |||
| Serious difficulties with spouse | −0.019 | −0.021 | |||
| Serious difficulties with child | −0.005 | 0.000 | |||
| Serious difficulties with parent/relative | −0.024 | −0.030 | |||
| Physical health decline | −0.011 | −0.022 | |||
| Nervous/emotional decline | −0.129* | −0.127* | |||
| Nothing more to achieve family/home life | 0.046 | 0.046 | |||
| Nothing more to achieve working life | 0.047 | 0.046 | |||
| Father’s social class (IIIM = reference) | |||||
| I (Professional)/II (Managerial/technical) | −0.150* | −0.151* | |||
| IIINM (Skilled nonmanual) | −0.051 | −0.059 | |||
| IV (Partly skilled)/V (Unskilled) | −0.074 | −0.059 | |||
| Goodness-of-fit statistics | |||||
| RMSEA | 0.061 | 0.055 | 0.053 | 0.044 | 0.034 |
| CFI | 0.974 | 0.980 | 0.976 | 0.977 | 0.984 |
| TLI | 0.974 | 0.970 | 0.974 | 0.969 | 0.961 |
Note. RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; CFI = comparative fit index; TLI = Tucker–Lewis index. Estimates are standardized.
p < .05.
Relationship of Midlife Mastery Accomplishments to Education Based on n = 1,184 Women in the MRC National Survey of Health and Development.
| Model 1: Education only | Model 2: Tangible benefits | Model 3: Goals | Model 4: Childhood circumstances | Model 5: Fully adjusted | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Low education at age 26 | 0.063 | 0.130* | 0.040 | 0.038 | 0.066 |
| Sweeps in paid work to age 52 | −0.057 | −0.053 | |||
| Working life not rewarding/no job | −0.255* | −0.269* | |||
| Working life somewhat rewarding | −0.133* | −0.127* | |||
| Financial difficulties at age 52 | −0.223* | −0.217* | |||
| Serious difficulties with spouse | −0.139* | −0.142* | |||
| Serious difficulties with child | −0.112* | −0.104* | |||
| Serious difficulties with parent/relative | −0.086* | −0.092* | |||
| Physical health decline | 0.009 | −0.005 | |||
| Nervous/emotional decline | −0.210* | −0.209* | |||
| Nothing more to achieve family/home life | 0.110* | 0.112* | |||
| Nothing more to achieve working life | 0.034 | 0.036 | |||
| Father’s social class (IIIM = reference) | |||||
| I (Professional)/II (Managerial/technical) | −0.252* | −0.147* | |||
| IIINM (Skilled nonmanual) | −0.161* | −0.097* | |||
| IV (Partly skilled)/V (Unskilled) | −0.131* | −0.059 | |||
| Goodness-of-fit statistics | |||||
| RMSEA | 0.061 | 0.055 | 0.053 | 0.050 | 0.049 |
| CFI | 0.974 | 0.980 | 0.976 | 0.989 | 0.979 |
| TLI | 0.974 | 0.970 | 0.974 | 0.985 | 0.961 |
Note. RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; CFI = comparative fit index; TLI = Tucker–Lewis index. Estimates are standardized.
p < .05.