Determinants of Productivity among Senior Citizens...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Determinants of Productivity among Senior Citizens...

on

  • 1,007 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
1,007
Views on SlideShare
1,007
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
1
Downloads
8
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft Word

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Determinants of Productivity among Senior Citizens... Determinants of Productivity among Senior Citizens... Document Transcript

  • Determinants of Productivity among Senior Citizens in Marikina City Ines Alcantara-de Guzman, PhD ABSTRACT This exploratory study was conducted to identify the variables that arepossible determinants of productivity among senior citizens in Marikina City and todevelop a productivity-scoring instrument. The respondents were 354 male andfemale senior citizens aged 60-79 from Barangka and Concepcion Uno/Tumana,Marikina City. Data gathering was done using a researcher-made surveyquestionnaire, which consisted of three parts of combined checklist and fill-in typequestions. Results show that only life activities such as walking, managing money,shopping for own groceries/personal items, using public transportation, cooking,home decorating, ironing, caring for infants/children, washing clothes using washingmachine, washing clothes by hand, and washing the dishes are the only specificindicators based on Havighurst’s paradigm that predict productivity among seniorcitizens. Two models of productivity were developed based on the results. The firstmodel is a 14-Predictor Productivity Model which includes 14 variables such asemployment status, preparation for old age, walking, managing own money, shoppingfor groceries/ personal items, riding public transport, washing clothes using washingmachine, washing clothes by hand, washing the dishes, and volunteer work. Thesecond model is an 11-Predictor Productivity Model, which includes all the variablesin the 14-Predictor Productivity Model except employment status, preparation for oldage, and volunteer work. Productivity-scoring instruments were formulated for thesetwo models using the questions on the research questionnaire. The focus groupdiscussion composed of 20 participants validated the findings of the study. INTRODUCTION In the face of changing times and greater emphasis on high productivity, thereseems to be a tendency to regard senior citizens as unproductive and generally asburden to others. Although it is not obligatory for those under 60 or 65 years old toleave the work force because of mandatory requirements, they are usually seen asineffective or unprepared to handle new tasks brought about by modernization andtechnology. They are also victims of outright discrimination when seeking workbecause employers prefer younger persons. The most serious difficulties from which the senior citizens suffer areeconomic in nature. Because of reduced income or lack of it, a high percentage ofsenior citizens are living near or below the poverty level. Retirement plans aregenerally inadequate and inflation becomes their serious problem. Many of them donot have access to adequate health services (Ogena, 2006) and once they enter theretirement age, it is hard for them to get health insurance because of age limit andprevailing costs (Weller, Wenger, and Gould, 2004). This concern over the plight of the senior citizens is an aftermath of theincreasing number of older persons 60 years old and above. Although still a youngpopulation compared with other age groups, the National Statistics Office (NSO) hasreported a notable increase in their number. Based on its March 18, 2005 SpecialRelease, the total number of senior citizens 60 years old and above has reached 4.6million, accounting for 5.97 percent of the country’s population of 76.5 million. Itmeans a 22.18 percent increase from 1995 (3.7 million persons) and an average 1
  • annual population growth rate of 4.39 percent during the 1995 to 2000 period. If thisgrowth rate continues, the number of senior citizens is expected to reach seven millionin 2010 and to double in approximately 16 years (NSO, 2005). Such scenario mayresult to having the “young old” (60-69 years old) taking care of the “old-old” (70-79years old). Many of the retired senior citizens continue to work in both formal andinformal labor sectors according to their capacities and preferences. Studiesconducted show retirees who are employed fulltime with an average of 40 hours perweek (Cabigon, 1996 and NSO, 2005). These are indications that the senior citizensare still capable of productive endeavors. Hence, this study focused on accomplishingthe following objectives: 1. to describe the socio-demographic and health profile of senior citizens in Marikina City; 2. to identify the variables that are possible determinants of productivity among senior citizens in Marikina City; and 3. to develop a productivity scorecard for senior citizens. METHODOLOGY This study is an exploratory research, which made use of a researcher-madequestionnaire as the survey technique combined with face-to-face interview. Aqualitative element in the form of a focus group discussion (FGD) was also used tocomplement the quantitative analysis performed on the survey responses. The respondents were male and female 60-79 years old senior citizens fromtwo barangays representing the two districts of Marikina City: Barangka of District 1and ConcepcionUno/Tumana of District II. These two barangays were the mostpopulous among the barangays in the two districts and they have the highest numberof senior citizens. Barangka is the first of nine barangays in District 1 with 1,277registered senior citizens while Concepcion Uno/Tumana is the third of fivebarangays in District II, with 2,917 registered senior citizens (Sira, 2006). A FocusGroup Discussion (FGD) was conducted among 20 participants, who were not amongthe respondents, to validate the data gathered from the research respondents. The data gathered was encoded in MSExcel, processed and analyzed using theStatistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). Graphical, tabular representationsas well as summary statistics were used in the presentation of the sociographic,demographic, and health profile of the respondents. Cluster analysis was utilized todetermine the number used to classify the senior citizens into groups such that none inthe same cluster have similar characteristics. The particular criterion used forclustering was the Ward method. In this method, the clusters that were fused at eachstage in the agglomeration process were such that their merger gave the minimumpossible increase in the within-cluster variation, which was an assurance ofhomogeneity within the newly formed cluster. The Dendogram is a graphicalillustration of the groupings. It was used to generate two groups of respondents basedon 25 variables - the “productive” and “non-productive” senior citizens. Logistic regression analysis was also used to determine which among the 25variables were predictors of productivity among the respondents. It was used togenerate the productivity scoring for senior citizens. The score was actually aprobability of being “productive” based on the estimated model as follows: 1 P (" Pr oductive" ) = ˆ + β X + β X + ... + β X )} 1 + exp{−( β0 ˆ ˆ ˆ 1 1 2 2 25 25 2
  • The estimated quantities β , β ,..., β were the coefficients of regression. The ˆ 0 ˆ 1 ˆ 25variables X1, X2,..,X25 were the dichotomous characteristics (1=present, 0=absent)listed below. X1 = Head of the Family X2 = Employed X3 = Income X4 = Prepared for old age X5 = Dressing X6 = Eating X7 = Bathing X8 = Walking X9 = Light Chores X10 = Managing Own Money X11 = Preparing Own Meal X12 = Shopping for Groceries X13 = Riding a Public Transport X14 = Cleaning the House X15 = Cooking X16 = Home Decorating X17 = Ironing Clothes X18 = Caring for Children X19 = Washing Clothes (by washing machine) X20 = Washing Clothes (by hand) X21 = Washing the Dishes X22 = Health Status (Perceived) X23 = Organization (Membership) X24 = Volunteer Work X25 = Productive (Perceived) After all 25 variables were fitted, backward deletion of non-significantvariables was performed to arrive at the best subset of characteristics that would mostlikely separate “productive” and “non-productive” individuals. Cluster analysis wasused to determine the number used to classify the senior citizens into groups such thatnone in the same cluster have similar characteristics. Each cluster thus described, interms of the data collected, the class to which its members belonged; and thisdescription may be abstracted through use from the particular to the general class ortype. The particular criterion used for clustering was the Ward method. Here, theclusters that were fused at each stage in the agglomeration process were such thattheir merger gave the minimum possible increase in the within-cluster variation,which was an assurance of homogeneity within the newly formed cluster. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONSProfile of Respondents Majority of the respondents were 60-69 years old, females, married,elementary level or elementary graduates, laborers, living with spouses and theirchildren, and heads of families (Table 1). 3
  • Table 1. Demo-Sociographic Profile of Respondents (N=354) Variable Category Frequency Percentage 60-69 193 54.50 Age 70 and above 161 46.00 Female 249 70.30 Gender Male 105 29.70 Married 184 52.00 Widow/Widower 147 41.50 Civil Status Single 17 4.80 Separated 6 1.70 Elementary level/Graduate 173 48.90 High School Level/Graduate 77 21.80 College Units/Graduate 53 15.00 Educational Attainment Voc Tech/College Level 37 10.50 No Formal Schooling 11 3.10 Graduate Degree 3 0.80 Living with spouse/children 128 36.20 Living with child/children 127 35.90 Living Arrangement Living with spouse 43 12.10 Living alone 28 7.90 Living with other relatives 28 7.90 Laborer 46 19.66 Shoemaker 41 17.52 Professional 32 13.68 Service Worker 26 11.11 Manager/Supervisor 21 8.97 Clerk 12 5.13 Sales Worker 11 4.70 Machine Operator 7 2.99 Vendor 6 2.56 Technician 4 1.71 Occupation Upon Retirement Store Owner/Operator 4 1.71 Farmer 4 1.71 Underwriter 3 1.28 Unskilled Worker 1 0.43 Shop Worker 1 0.43 Fisherman 1 0.43 Corporate Executive 1 0.43 Carinderia 1 0.43 Corporate Executive 1 0.43 Unskilled Worker 6 2.56 No Data 5 14.71 Living with Spouse/Children 128 36.20 Living with Child/Children 127 35.90 Living Arrangement Living with Spouse 43 12.10 Living alone 28 7.90 Living with Other Relatives 28 7.90 Yes, Head of the Family 190 53.70 Head of the Family No, Not Head of the Family 164 46.30Health Status and Physical Well-Being 4
  • Majority of the respondents were non-smokers and non-drinkers of alcoholicbeverages; have poor vision; went to the city’s government hospital for medicalattention; assessed their health condition as good to excellent; and spent their leisuretime watching television and listening to music (Table 2). Table 2. Health Status and Physical Well-Being of Respondents (N=354) Variable Category Frequency Percentage No, I dont smoke 313 88.40 Smoking Patterns Yes, I smoke 41 11.60 No, I dont drink alcoholic beverages 317 89.50 Drinking Patterns Yes, I drink alcoholic beverages 37 10.50 Poor Vision 199 56.21 Poor Hearing 51 43.80 Arthritis 106 30.00 Hypertension 84 23.90 Cataract 51 14.41 Heart Disease 37 10.45 Health Status* Asthma 20 5.65 Kidney Problem 18 5.08 Osteoporosis 17 4.80 Pulmonary Disease 11 3.11 Ulcer 10 2.82 Emphysema 3 0.85 Glaucoma 2 0.56 Government Hospital 141 39.80 Health Center 130 36.70 Medical Facility Used* Private Clinic 65 18.40 Private Hospital 41 11.60 Home 41 11.60 Good to Excellent 264 74.60 Perceived Health Assessment Poor to Fair 90 25.40 Watching Television 300 84.70 Listening to Music 224 63.30 Needlework 53 15.00 Ballroom Dancing 23 6.50 Leisure Activities* Playing Board Games 14 4.00 Fishing 9 2.50 Handicrafts 8 2.30 Painting 4 1.10 Collecting items 1 0.30 *Multiple ResponsesEconomic Activities Most of the respondents were retirees and were receiving a monthly pension ofPhp 4,000.00 and below. A small percentage of the respondents were employed andwere working in private companies and receiving an income of Php 4,000.00 andbelow. Majority of them claimed that the monthly income they received wasinsufficient for their daily needs. Most of the unemployed and non-retirees have plansof looking for a fulltime but home-based jobs. The unemployed and non-retireesidentified several sources of income such as children, other relatives, friends, andcolleagues; rentals; farmland; financial investment; spouse’s pension; and spouse’s 5
  • income. Most of the respondents also claimed that they prepared for their old age bysending their children to school, a typical Filipino family value giving importance toeducation as a poverty-liberating factor. Those who claimed they did not prepare forold age pointed out some reasons such as: no extra income; it was not seen as a need;and they were too busy to think of saving for their old age (Table 3). Table 3. Economic Activities of Respondents (N=354) Variable Category Frequency Percentage Retired 174 49.20 Employment Status Otherwise (Unemployed/Non-retiree) 120 33.90 Employed 60 16.90 Private 144 62.30 Type of Employment Self-employed 55 23.80 Government 32 13.90 Below P4, 000 38 63.33 4,001-8,000 13 21.67 8,001-15,000 4 6.67 Monthly Income of Employed 15,001-30,000 1 1.67 30,001-50,000 1 1.67 50,001 and above 1 1.67 No data 2 3.33 Below P4, 000 97 55.75 4,001-8,000 21 12.00 8,001-15,000 10 5.75 Monthly Pension of Retirees 15,001-30,000 2 1.15 30,001-50,000 1 0.57 50,001 and above 0 0 No pension 43 29.71 Have plans to look for work 136 46.25 Fulltime 136 46.25 Part-time 106 36.05 Work Plans and Preferences of Undecided 52 17.69 Unemployed and Retirees Home-based 88 29.93 Out-of-home 43 14.68 Undecided 163 55.44Life Activities Most of the respondents could perform activities of daily life (ADLs) withoutany help from other people such as: dressing up or putting on clothes, eating, taking abath, and walking around the house. Among the respondents, 1.4 percent expresseddifficulty in walking around the house, 13.1 percent have difficulty dressing up andeating, while 2.5 percent have difficulty taking a bath. This could be attributed to thefact that there are more 60 to 69 years old (young old) than the 70 years old and above(old-old), thus younger and stronger respondents. Majority can also performinstrumental activities of daily life (IADLs) such as doing light household chores,managing own money, preparing own meal, shopping for own groceries/personalitems, and using public transportation.Results also show that majority of the respondents were involved in household choresin their own homes. In fact, they considered these household chores as theircontributions in their families (Figure 1). 6
  • Figure 1. Engagement in Activities of Daily Living (ADL), Instrumental Activities in Daily Living (IADL), and Household Chores. ENGAGEMENT IN ADLs ENGAGEMENT IN IADLs HOUSEHOLD ACTIVITIES Doing light Cleaning the Walking 80.5 household 92.1 house around 98.6 w orkthe house Cooking 78.0 Managing Washing the 73.2 ow n money 68.6 Taking a dishes 97.5 bath Ironing clothes 54.8 Preparing 92.9 ow n meal Washing 54.8 clothes by hand Eating 96.9 Shopping for ow n Taking care of 76.3 46.6 groceries or infants/children personal item Home Dressing 37.0 decoratingup/Putting 96.9 Using public 81.6on clothes transportation Washing 36.7 clothes by Volunteer Work Volunteer work is a valuable and productive way for older people to stay engaged in society, to use their expertise, maintain, and nourish their sense of purpose, their innate value and their self-respect, which results in greater independence, health and well-being for older people (WHO, 2002). The results of this study show that most of the respondents (55.9%) were not involved in volunteer work due to poor health (28.8%). Other reasons given were lack of time (18.1%); they did not know how and where (12.1%); and they lacked funds to do volunteer work (1.4%). Those who were involved in volunteer work joined barangay activities; Homeowners’ Association activities; parish activities (church choir, lector, acolyte, catechist, lay minister, and mother butler); feeding programs; Gawad Kalinga projects; livelihood programs; family counseling; and traffic enforcer volunteer (Figure 2). Figure 2. Involvement in Volunteer Work 7
  • VOLUNTEER WORK PARTICIPATED IN REASONS FOR NO VOLUNTEER WORK Barangay 28.2 ActivitiesHomeowners Health 10.2 28.8 Association reasonsChurch choir 5.6 Lay Minister 4.8 Lack of 18.1 time Lector 3.7 Feeding 2.3 programs Dont Catechist 1.7 know how 12.1 Livelihood and where 1.7 programs Family 1.7 Lack of counseling Mother necessary 2.8 1.1 Butler skills Gawad 0.8 Kalinga Traffic 0.8 Lack of Enforcer 1.4 funds Acolyte 0.6 Membership in Organizations Havighurst (1964) noted that establishing an explicit affiliation with one’s age group is one task of the elderly. It involves accepting one’s status in the community and becoming an active participant in one’s age group. Ageing slows down a person, such that it is now quite impossible for senior citizens to keep up with activities done in their younger years, thus they resort to giving up these activities. In this study, most of the respondents (63.3%) were members of organizations such as: church organizations, Homeowners/Neighborhood Association, Kababaihan, Civic Clubs, Samahang Caretakers, Senior Choir, Marikina Riverpark Runners, Loyola Civic Organizations, Senior Citizens’ Association, and Women’s Clubs. The senior citizens looked at membership in organizations as their chance to relate with other people especially those of their own age. Community Involvement Havighurst (1964) also added that one task of later maturity is meeting social and civic obligations. He said that older people are involved in the conduct of civic and political affairs both as citizens and office holders. In this study, the senior citizens were asked to identify top five problems in their respective communities. The results show that majority (66.6%) of the respondents considered unemployment problems as the number one problem followed by security (41.4%), substance abuse (33.1%), pollution (30.6%) and illiteracy (21.5%). They also identified some personal 8
  • contributions to lessen these problems such as reporting incidents to authorities(63.2%), participating actively in community affairs (49.9%), becoming a morevigilant community member (34.3%), and conducting skills development programs(23.7%). Their knowledge about societal problems and what they could do to helpsolve these problems were clear indications of their desire to take part in communityaffairs (Table 4). Table 4. Community Involvement of the Respondents (N=354)Variable Category Frequency Percentage Unemployment 235 66.6 Security 146 41.4 Substance abuse 117 33.1 Pollution 100 30.6 Community Problems* Crime and Violence 76 21.5 Illiteracy 76 21.5 Juvenile delinquency 57 16.1 Child Abuse 36 10.2 Immorality 35 9.9 Report incidents immediately to authorities 223 63.2 Possible Contributions Participate actively in community affairs 176 49.9 of Respondents* Become a more vigilant community member 121 34.3 Conduct skills development program 73 23.7 Multiple Responses*Perceived Productivity Majority of the respondents (85.9%) claimed that they are productive. Thispersonal assessment supports the argument that senior citizens are still at the height oftheir productivity and their desire to continue being a resource for their families and inthe community where they belong.“Productive” and “Non-Productive” Respondents Using Cluster Analysis, 25 variables were chosen from the questionnaire andwere tested using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). The objectivewas to group the respondents into “productive” and “non-productive” based on thechosen variables. The Dendogram showed two major clusters of respondents: the“productive” and the “non-productive” clusters. Results also show that almost anequal number of respondents were labeled as “productive” and “non-productive”(Figure 3), which did not cohere to the respondents’ actual perception of themselves.Thus, the results of the Cluster Analysis was only one way of classifying the seniorcitizens based on the variables chosen. However, the perceived productivity of therespondents based on their own personal assessment, which includes their capabilitiescannot be ignored as another way of grouping them. Figure 3. “Productive” and “Non-Productive” Respondents Based on the 25 Variables 9
  • Variables PRODUCTIVE VS NON-PRODUCTIVE Head of the family 46% 62% Employed 21% 13% Income 38% 38% Prepared for old age 78% 65% Dressing 100% 94% Eating 100% 94% Bathing 99% 95% Walking 99% 98% Light Chores 98% 86% Managing Own Money 89% 57% Preparing Own Meal 99% 86% Shopping for Groceries 94% 57% Riding a Public Transport 94% 68% Cleaning the House 98% 62% Cooking 96% 59% Home Decorating 60% 13% Ironing Clothes 89% 19% Caring for Children 66% 26% Washing Clothes (by machine) 50% 23% Washing Clothes (by hand) 73% 36% Washing the Dishes 93% 43% Healthy (Perceived) 76% 73% Organization (Membership) 71% 56% Volunteer 50% 38% Productive (Perceived) 91% 81% The groupings generated by the Cluster Analysis may lead to stereotyping thesenior citizens so that other people may see them as “non-productive”. Thisstereotyping could be one of the reasons why after retirement the average seniorcitizen could hardly get a second employment or if unemployed, such stereotypemakes it harder for him or her to participate in paid labor as evidenced by therespondent’s disclosure below. “Dapat pantay-pantay ang pagtingin ng mga employers sa mga naghahanap ng trabaho matanda man o bata. Sa mga panahong ito, para bang wala nang kuwenta ang tao pag matanda na kasi ayaw ng tanggapin sa trabaho.” (Employers should give equal chances to people looking for jobs, young or old. At present, it seems like senior citizens are useless because employers do not want to hire them anymore.) The results could also be supported in terms of what the Johari Window byJoseph Luft and Harry Ingham (Yen, 1999) posits. It is one of the most useful modelsdescribing the process of human interaction. The four-paned window divides personalawareness into four different types represented by its four quadrants: open, hidden,blind, and unknown. The lines dividing the four are like window shades, which canmove as an interaction progresses. The open quadrant is known to self and to others;the blind quadrant is not known to self but known to others; the hidden quadrant isknown to self but not known to others; the unknown quadrant is not known to self andnot known to others. Hence, the perceived productivity of the respondents could becompared to the hidden quadrant where information is known only to the self, whilethe result of the Cluster Analysis could be compared to the blind quadrant whereinformation is unknown to the self but known to others. The Johari Window (Figure 10
  • 4) aims at increasing the open area while reducing the blind, the hidden, and theunknown areas through feedback, disclosure, and self-discovery and mutualenlightenment respectively. Similarly, feedback, disclosure, self-discovery, andmutual enlightenment can be beneficial for the senior citizens and those working fortheir welfare. Figure 4. Productivity and the Johari Window KNOWN TO UNKNOWN SELF TO SELF OPEN BLIND Cluster KNOWN TO OTHERS Analysis’ Result on Productivity HIDDEN UNKNOWN Perceived UNKNOWN TO OTHERS Productivity of RespondentsPredictors of Productivity Logistic regression analysis was used to determine which among the 25variables were predictors of productivity among the respondents. It was also used togenerate the productivity scorecard for senior citizens. The Full Model (Table 5)shows all 25 clustering variables entering the model. Though some variables were notsignificant on their own, logistic regression combined their predictive powers. Fromthe Full Model, deletion was done starting with health, as most geriatric studies seemto point that this bears the least significance to the senior citizen’s productivityfollowed by eating with .999 significance. From here on, deletion continuedbeginning with the least significant predictor. The Full Model shows that 93.1 percentof “non-productive” are concordantly classified by the Logistic Model and 95 percentof “productive” are concordantly classified by the same model. The overallclassification efficiency is 94.1 percent. Thus, 94.1 percent of the respondents werecorrectly identified into their respective clusters. The Classification Table a (Table 6)with 14 variables has an effective p-value of alpha = 0.20, with 94 percent accuracy 11
  • and a good mixture of predictors such as: employment status, preparation for old age,walking, managing own money, shopping for own groceries, using publictransportation, cooking family meals, home decorating, ironing clothes, caring forinfants/children, washing clothes using washing machine, washing clothes by hand,dishwashing, and doing volunteer work. The Classification Table b (Table 7) with 11predictors was a result of further deletion of the least significant variable. As a result,three other variables were deleted: employment status, preparation for old age, andvolunteer work, leaving only life activities as predictors of productivity. Table 5. Full Model Showing the 25 Clustering Variables Classification Table Logistic-Predicted Percentage Productivity Group Correct NonProductive Productive Productivity Cluster NonProductive 161 12 93.0636 Productive 9 172 95.0276 Overall Percentage 94.0678 The cut value is .500Variables in theEquation B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B) Head of family -0.07360 0.55719 0.01745 1.00000 0.89491 0.92904 Employment status 1.63568 0.81396 4.03823 1.00000 0.04448 5.13293 Income 0.56825 0.60100 0.89399 1.00000 0.34440 1.76517 Preparation for old age 1.20478 0.59663 4.07757 1.00000 0.04346 3.33604 Dressing-up 19.85974 7202.85698 0.00001 1.00000 0.99780 421673546.89229 Eating 9.32784 7202.85853 0.00000 1.00000 0.99897 11246.82413 Bathing -2.03175 41.71401 0.00237 1.00000 0.96115 0.13111 Walking 0.98608 41.69646 0.00056 1.00000 0.98113 2.68072 Light household chores 0.22836 1.86287 0.01503 1.00000 0.90243 1.25654 Managing 1.87337 0.72819 6.61851 1.00000 0.01009 6.51020 Preparing for old age -3.21565 1.56648 4.21391 1.00000 0.04009 0.04013 Shopping groceries 3.08804 0.87897 12.34281 1.00000 0.00044 21.93399 Using public transportation 1.65616 0.84654 3.82744 1.00000 0.05042 5.23916 Cleaning the house 0.72461 1.19682 0.36656 1.00000 0.54488 2.06392 Cooking meals 3.20908 0.94830 11.45183 1.00000 0.00071 24.75642 Home Decorating 1.11888 0.64857 2.97615 1.00000 0.08450 3.06142 Ironing 4.27764 0.73252 34.10116 1.00000 0.00000 72.06987 Caring for infants/children 2.26907 0.57065 15.81079 1.00000 0.00007 9.67039 Washing Clothes-washing machine 1.51751 0.60944 6.20012 1.00000 0.01277 4.56087 Washing clothes by hand 1.63393 0.60584 7.27355 1.00000 0.00700 5.12397 Washing the dishes 1.83901 0.74201 6.14251 1.00000 0.01320 6.29030 Perceived Health -2.09528 0.73078 8.22071 1.00000 0.00414 0.12304 Membership in organization 0.66267 0.56741 1.36396 1.00000 0.24285 1.93997 Volunteer work 0.94411 0.58968 2.56341 1.00000 0.10936 2.57052 Perceived Productivity 0.11467 0.81185 0.01995 1.00000 0.88767 1.12150 12
  • Constant -42.25201 10158.07219 0.00002 1.00000 0.99668 0.00000 Table 6. Classification Table with 14 VariablesClassification Table Logistic-Predicted Percentage Productivity Group Correct NonProductive ProductiveProductivity Cluster NonProductive 160 13 92.5 Productive 9 172 95.0Overall Percentage 93.8The cut value is .500Variables in the Equation B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)Employment Status 1.4243 0.6753 4.4486 1.0000 0.0349 4.1549Prepared for Old Age 0.7588 0.5313 2.0396 1.0000 0.1532 2.1358Walking 4.5917 1.8519 6.1479 1.0000 0.0132 98.6625Managing own Money 1.9924 0.6743 8.7317 1.0000 0.0031 7.3331Shopping for Groceries 2.4659 0.8014 9.4679 1.0000 0.0021 11.7740Using PublicTransportation 1.7397 0.7491 5.3938 1.0000 0.0202 5.6956Cooking family meals 2.4571 0.7743 10.0704 1.0000 0.0015 11.6707Home Decorating 1.0608 0.5535 3.6738 1.0000 0.0553 2.8888Ironing Clothes 3.6348 0.5710 40.5192 1.0000 0.0000 37.8941Caring forInfant/Children 1.9034 0.5034 14.2962 1.0000 0.0002 6.7090Washing Clothes byWashing Machine 1.2632 0.5375 5.5227 1.0000 0.0188 3.5366Washing Clothes byHand 1.5427 0.5202 8.7955 1.0000 0.0030 4.6773Washing the Dishes 1.9588 0.6619 8.7569 1.0000 0.0031 7.0906Healthy-Perceived 0.6943 0.5054 1.8869 1.0000 0.1696 2.0022Constant -19.5457 3.2775 35.5637 1.0000 0.0000 0.0000 13
  • Table 7. Classification Table with 11 VariablesClassification TableObserved Predicted Productivity Percentage Group Correct NonProductive ProductiveProductivity Cluster NonProductive 157 16 90.8 Productive 9 172 95.0Overall Percentage 92.9The cut value is .500Variables in the Equation B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)Walking 4.1218 1.7404 5.6088 1.0000 0.0179 61.6693Managing Own Money 2.0202 0.6503 9.6514 1.0000 0.0019 7.5401Shopping for Groceries 2.2135 0.7406 8.9321 1.0000 0.0028 9.1481Using Public Transportation 1.8509 0.7410 6.2391 1.0000 0.0125 6.3659Cooking Family Meals 2.2796 0.7473 9.3051 1.0000 0.0023 9.7730Home Decorating 1.0704 0.5386 3.9493 1.0000 0.0469 2.9165Ironing Clothes 3.4044 0.5350 40.4943 1.0000 0.0000 30.0950Caring for Infant/Children 1.9376 0.4875 15.7968 1.0000 0.0001 6.9422Washing Clothes UsingWashing Machine 1.1254 0.5167 4.7440 1.0000 0.0294 3.0814Washing Clothes by Hand 1.5623 0.5111 9.3439 1.0000 0.0022 4.7696Washing the Dishes 1.5934 0.5923 7.2377 1.0000 0.0071 4.9204Constant -16.5552 2.6274 39.7021 1.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Based on the results of the study, two productivity-scoring instruments forsenior citizens in Marikina City were proposed. 1. A 14-Predictor Productivity Model Scoring Instrument. This productivity- scoring instrument contains 14 variables. These are: 1. Employment status 2. Preparation for old age 3. Walking around the house 4. Managing own money 5. Shopping for own groceries 6. Using public transportation 7. Cooking family meals 8. Home decorating 9. Ironing clothes 10. Caring for infant/children 11. Washing clothes using washing machine 12. Washing clothes by hand 13. Washing the dishes 14. Volunteer work. 14
  • This Productivity Model could be used if there is a need for more data to determine the productivity among senior citizens. Though it still contains three least significant predictors, it has a good mixture of various predictors that could give a more comprehensive productivity assessment. Moreover, the variables encompassed various contexts in which the elderly may find themselves engaged in. It consists of 14 questions based on the 14 variables with 94 percent accuracy level (Figure 5).2. The 11-Predictor Productivity Model Scoring Instrument. This scoring instrument contains 11 significant predictors, which are all life activities. It is recommended for Marikina senior citizens with similar profile as the respondents of this study. These are: 1. Walking around the house 2. Managing own money 3. Shopping for own groceries 4. Using public transportation 5. Cooking 6. Home decorating 7. Ironing clothes 8. Caring for infant/children 9. Washing clothes using washing machine 10. Washing clothes by hand 11. Washing the dishesThis productivity-scoring instrument has 93 percent accuracy. This is morepreferred especially for the respondents of this study because it has only 11questions representing the 11 highly significant variables that could be easilyanswered by the senior citizens. It is also easier when computing for the scoresor results (Figure 6). 15
  • Figure 5. Scoring instrument for the 14-Predictor Productivity Model PRODUCTIVITY SCORING INSTRUMENT For Marikina City Senior Citizens A. NAME: _________________________ Below are questions related to your ability to perform basic life and household activities. Read the questions carefully then put an x on the column that corresponds to your answer. B. SCORECARD Questions Yes No Score (1 if yes, 0 if no) 1. Are you employed? x 1 2. Did you prepare for your old age when you were younger? x 0 3. Do you walk around the house everyday? x 1 4. Do you manage your own money? x 1 5. Do you shop for your own groceries or personal items? x 1 6. Do you use public transportation without help from others? x 1 7. Do you cook meals for the family? x 1 8. Do you like decorating your home? x 0 9. Do you iron clothes for the family? x 1 10. Do you take care of infants or children/grandchildren? x 0 11. Do you wash your clothes using a washing machine? x 1 12. Do you wash clothes by hand? x 0 13. Do you wash the dishes? x 0 14. Are you currently involved in volunteer work? x 1 Equation: 1P (" Pr oductive" ) = = 0.6721 = 67.21% 1 + exp{−(−19.5457 +1.4243(1) + 0.7588(0) + 4.5917(1) +1.9924(1) + 2.4659(1) +.. + 0.6943(1)} C. SCORE: PRODUCTIVE NON-PRODUCTIVE (If score is >.50) (If score <.50) Figure 6. Scoring instrument for the 11-Predictor Productivity Model 16
  • PRODUCTIVITY SCORING INSTRUMENT For Marikina City Senior Citizens A. NAME: _________________________ Below are questions related to your ability to perform basic life and household activities. Read the questions carefully then put an x the column that corresponds to your answer. B. SCORECARD Questions Yes No Score (1 if yes, 0 if not) 1. Do you walk around the house everyday? x 1 2. Do you manage your own money? x 0 3. Do you shop for your own groceries or personal items? x 1 4. Do you use public transportation without help from others? x 1 5. Do you cook meals for the family? x 1 6. Do you like decorating your home? x 1 7. Do you iron clothes for the family? x 1 8. Do you take care of infants or children/grandchildren? x 0 9. Do you wash your clothes using a washing machine? x 1 10. Do you wash clothes by hand? x 0 11. Do you wash the dishes? x 1 Equation: 1P (" Pr oductive" ) = 1 + exp{−( −16.552 + 4.1218(1) + 2.0202(1) + 2.2135(1) +1.8509(1) + 2.2796(0) + C. SCORE PRODUCTIVE NON PRODUCTIVE (If score is >.50) (If score <.50) CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS At this age and time when senior citizens are increasing in number, plans onhow to effectively address their needs are also underway. These plans include variedopportunities to sustain and improve further their productivity and maintain theircontributions for their own welfare and those of others. They are aimed atencouraging them to strengthen their independence, prolong their spirit ofproductivity as they enjoy life to the fullest. The need for these programs has become 17
  • more urgent because of the dramatic changes in family structures, roles and laborpatterns, and migration, especially in the rapidly changing global environment. The movement of young people to urban areas, the shift from extended tonuclear families, and the increasing number of women joining the workforce are alldevelopments that brought about new adjustments especially on the senior citizenscaring for themselves. Globally, the senior citizens are now regarded as beneficiariesand active participants and contributors of developments (WHO, 2002). In fact, theyare authentic sources of information, tested family values, beautiful traditions, andactual experiences. The senior citizens have fulfilled their part in creating the kind of life we arenow enjoying. It is but just and fair to make them feel that we appreciate them fortheir own contributions through the programs designed to empower them even in theirold age. No less than Pope John Paul II (Martino, 1999) in one of his celebratedprayers on July 25, 1999, calls us to always remember that: “By their very presence, older people remind everyone, especially the young that life on earth is a ‘parable’ with its own beginning and end: to find its fulfillment, life must be based on values that are not transient and superficial, but solid and profound. The so called ‘third age’ is …a value in itself by the very fact that life is prolonged and life itself is a gift of God.” Based on the findings of this study, the following recommendations arepresented: 1. Using the results of this study, the Office of the Senior Citizens’ Affairs (OSCA) that works for the welfare of Marikina City senior citizens, could plan and conduct skills and personality development programs (healthy lifestyle, art appreciation, and creative leisure activities) to increase the senior citizens’ capabilities, empower, and build-up further their self-confidence. The senior citizens in their desire to participate in economic and other worthwhile activities can also utilize such skills. 2. Through the findings and analyses being offered in this research, the Marikina City government and its private institutions could put their acts together to formulate public policy, maintenance, monitoring, and evaluation for the sake of sustaining the democratic and productive participation of the senior citizens in community and nation building. 3. The study aimed at providing continued avenues where the senior citizens could remain as productive members of society. Therefore, the results of this study could be used as bases for developing better working conditions, health, and retirement benefits or schemes. Also, by recognizing the potential contributions of senior citizens, labor and business sectors in the city could look into the possibility of adjusting existing labor practices and policies that apply to ageing workers like adopting a much later retirement age or making retirement optional at age 65, so that they continue to actively participate in community development as they prepare themselves for a more economically sound retirement. 4. To sustain a beautiful Filipino tradition of respect for old age and increase appreciation for their contributions, topics on the elderly or later maturity should be incorporated in the basic and tertiary education Home Economics curriculum. Hopefully, such inclusion of topics will enable the young to develop a better consciousness for the welfare of the senior citizens. In 18
  • addition, this will enable them to adopt a more informed consciousness about ageing. 5. Using the productivity-scoring instrument, being the major contribution of this research, a pilot test could be conducted among Marikina senior citizens to ensure its validity and reliability for self-assessment or self-evaluation. 6. The Marikina City government may utilize the Productivity-Scoring Instruments to assess the senior citizens’ capabilities and preparedness to undergo programs designed to provide them with sustained stimulating external environment in which they may function at high levels of attentiveness and productivity. By using these for profiling purposes, policies, practices, and provisions for the elderly may better be designed and implemented. 7. Considering the limitations of this research, a more in-depth study using a larger and more varied sample should be conducted to get a better picture of possible predictors of productivity among senior citizens not only in Marikina City but also all over the Philippines. This may become the basis of further transnational and cross-cultural analysis of productivity among the elderly. 8. The 14-Predictor Productivity Model maybe studied further in terms of its applicability and comprehensiveness because it covers not just the daily life activities but also economic activities and community work of the senior citizens. REFERENCESCabigon, Josefina V. (1999). Idle, tired, and retired elderly– A myth the Filipino elderly: Towards a society for all ages. Rapid demographic change and the welfare of the elderly project, the 1996 Philippine elderly and near elderly survey. Demographic Research and Development Foundation (DRDF), Quezon City. Philippines.Havighurst, Robert J. (1964). Developmental tasks and education. New York: David McKay Company, Inc. pp. 92-100.Martino, Archbishop Renato R., Apostolic Nuncio (1999). Permanent Observer of the Holy See to the United Nations Before the Plenary of the General Assembly in its 54th session on the “Follow-Up to the international year of older persons.” New York, (October 5). http:/www.vatican.va/romancuria secretariatstate/documents/ rc seg-st doc 05101999 older- person en.html.National Statistics Office (2005). Senior citizens comprised six percent of the population: A special release based on the results of census 2000. Special Release No. 151, Date Released: March 18, 2005. http://www.census.gov.ph/data press release/2006/pr0620tx.htmlOgena, Nimfa B. ( 2006). The low and slow ageing in the Philippines: Auspicious or challenging?. University of the Philippines Population Institute (UPPI).Sira, Warren (2006). Data on the registered senior citizens per barangay. Office for Senior Citizens Affairs, Marikina City Hall, Marikina City.Weller, Christian E., Wenger, Jeffrey, and Elise Gould (2004). Health insurancecoverage in retirement: The erosion of retiree income security. http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/books_health_ins_retWorld Health Organization Brasilia (2002). Older people new power for development. UN 2002 http://www.who.int/hpr/ageing/international_day_en.htmlYen, Duen His (1999). Johari Window. http:www.noogenesis.com/game_theory/johari/johari_window.html 19
  • About the AuthorInes Alcantara-de Guzman is the current Assistant Principal for Student Affairs ofMCHS, where she has been serving in the last 29 years. She obtained her bachelor’s,master’s, and doctoral degrees in Home Economics from the College of HomeEconomics of the University of the Philippines. She has written several textbooks inHome Economics and Livelihood Education (HELE) Grades 4-6, Technology andHome Economics (THE) Years I-IV, and Technology and Livelihood Education(TLE) Years I-II. She writes a quarterly journal for TLE Years I-IV entitled VitalityJournal published by Innovative Educational Materials, Inc., She has conductedvarious seminars and workshops for HELE, THE/TLE teachers. 20
  • About the AuthorInes Alcantara-de Guzman is the current Assistant Principal for Student Affairs ofMCHS, where she has been serving in the last 29 years. She obtained her bachelor’s,master’s, and doctoral degrees in Home Economics from the College of HomeEconomics of the University of the Philippines. She has written several textbooks inHome Economics and Livelihood Education (HELE) Grades 4-6, Technology andHome Economics (THE) Years I-IV, and Technology and Livelihood Education(TLE) Years I-II. She writes a quarterly journal for TLE Years I-IV entitled VitalityJournal published by Innovative Educational Materials, Inc., She has conductedvarious seminars and workshops for HELE, THE/TLE teachers. 20
  • About the AuthorInes Alcantara-de Guzman is the current Assistant Principal for Student Affairs ofMCHS, where she has been serving in the last 29 years. She obtained her bachelor’s,master’s, and doctoral degrees in Home Economics from the College of HomeEconomics of the University of the Philippines. She has written several textbooks inHome Economics and Livelihood Education (HELE) Grades 4-6, Technology andHome Economics (THE) Years I-IV, and Technology and Livelihood Education(TLE) Years I-II. She writes a quarterly journal for TLE Years I-IV entitled VitalityJournal published by Innovative Educational Materials, Inc., She has conductedvarious seminars and workshops for HELE, THE/TLE teachers. 20