Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vjeb20
Journal of Education for Business
ISSN: 0883-2323 (Print) 1940-3356 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjeb20
Implications for an Aging Workforce
Shari McMahan & Dominick Sturz
To cite this article: Shari McMahan & Dominick Sturz (2006) Implications for an Aging Workforce, Journal of Education for Business, 82:1, 50-55, DOI: 10.3200/JOEB.82.1.50-55 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/JOEB.82.1.50-55
Published online: 07 Aug 2010.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 156
View related articles
ABSTRACT. America’s workforce is
aging, with over 20% of the workforce
expected to be aged 55 and over by the year
2015, an increase of nearly 50% through
2014. As people age, their resistance to
harmful exposures is reduced. Injury data
suggest that although elderly workers are
less likely to be hurt seriously enough to
lose worktime, they often take twice the
time needed to return to work. Very little is
known about physiological changes and
how these changes affect individual
perfor-mance, productivity, and safety. This article
highlights some of these changes and offers
suggestions to employers and academic
institutions to support employees as they
adapt and cope with these changes.
Key words: age-related changes, older
workforce, productivity
Copyright © 2006 Heldref Publications
merica’s workforce is aging, with over 20% of the workforce expected to be aged 55 and over by the year 2015, an increase of nearly 50% through 2014 (AARP Public Policy Institute, 2006). According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, between 1998–2008, the number of civilian workers aged 55 and over will increase by 49.9%, whereas those 25–54 will increase by only 5.5% and those 16–24 will actually decrease by 2.8% (Fuller-ton, 1999). This decline will lead to a proportionally smaller pool of younger workers. Legislation and public atten-tion have focused on the protecatten-tion of older workers. In 1967, the Age Dis-crimination in Employment Act (ADEA; United States Equal Employ-ment Opportunity Commission, 1997) was passed. It prevented workers aged over 40 years from being denied employment based solely on age. In 1990, the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA; United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 2002) provided further protection for older workers. Under the ADA, employ-ers are required to make job modifica-tions to accommodate workers with sen-sory or manual deficits. Along with demographic changes and legislation that protects older workers, the nation will continue to see an unprecedented increase in the number of companies employing older workers.
These demographic changes will have serious social and economic con-sequences. In fact, policymakers have turned their attention toward increasing employment opportunities for older workers because of the serious demand that may be placed on alternative sources of income such as social securi-ty benefits. A Harris Survey finds that there are 3.7 million people aged over 55 years who are not currently working but who would like to work and are ready, willing, and able to work. This includes 1 million people aged 55–64 and 2.7 million aged 65 and over (Humphrey, 1999).
As people age, they are at a higher risk for several diseases and their resis-tance to harmful exposures is reduced. In addition, injuries are often much more severe, if not fatal (Runge, 1993). Major findings from the Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries state that elderly persons have a higher risk of workplace fatalities relative to their share of employment. Workers over 55 years have higher fatality rates from trans-portation accidents and falls compared with any other age category (Toscano & Windau, 1993). Some of the major rea-sons for falls include environmental hazards, loss of physical fitness, and adverse effects of medications (Tibbitts, 1996). The consequences are often dev-astating, resulting in substantial morbid-ity and psychological trauma. The
inter-Implications for an Aging Workforce
SHARI MCMAHAN
DOMINICK STURZ
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY–FULLERTON FULLERTON, CALIFORNIA
A
VIEWPOINT
action effect of age and height of falls is interesting. Investigators using National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) data found that older workers are at increased risk of falls, and after age 45 this increase becomes dramatic (Agnew & Saruda, 1993). The height of a fatal fall in those aged 15–44 is 15+ feet, whereas the average height of a fatal fall in those aged over 45 is less than 7 feet (Agnew & Saruda). Over 250,000 older adults annually experience fall-related hip fractures. This number is expected to increase dra-matically in the coming decades. In addition, the annual cost of physical frailty has been estimated to be between $54–80 billion nationally and is expect-ed to increase to over $132 billion by the year 2030 unless disability rates among older adults can be reduced.
In addition to workplace fatality, injury and illness data suggest that although elderly workers are less likely to be hurt seriously enough to lose worktime, they often take twice the time needed to return to work (Douglas & Muran, 2000; Wal-ton, 2001). This time away may con-tribute to increased economic burden on workers’ compensation and our medical care system, corporation costs, and indi-vidual hardships. Two factors contribute to the length of time needed to recuperate from an injury. First, older workers sus-tain disabling conditions such as broken bones, fractures, and multiple injuries more often than do younger workers, and second, these conditions require more time to heal in older individuals (Garg, 1991). In addition, hospitalization usually results from a fracture in older workers (Layne & Landen, 1997). Very little is known about physiological changes (e.g., changes in vision, hearing, musculoskele-tal system) and how these changes affect individual performance, productivity, and workplace safety. It is important to note that there is no single age that marks when age-related changes begin to occur. In addition, there are substantial individ-ual differences in the rates at which they will occur. For some, these changes may be debilitating; for others, these changes may be negligible depending on the indi-vidual. The purpose of this article is to highlight some of the more salient age-related changes and how employers, par-ticularly academic institutions, can
sup-port employees as they adapt and cope with these changes. Individual, environ-mental, and organizational approaches are among some of the strategies employ-ers will need to consider.
Vision
There are a number of changes in visual abilities that have the potential to impair work performance among aging individuals. These changes include a decline in static and dynamic visual acuity, a reduction in the range of accommodation, a loss of contrast sen-sitivity, a decrease in dark adaptation, an increase in susceptibility to glare, a decline in the ability to detect targets against a background, and a decline in the ability to discriminate between cer-tain colors, primarily blue and green (Czaja, 1995; Kline & Scheiber, 1985). In addition, diseases such as cataracts, glaucoma, and macular degeneration are more common as people age. After the age of 60, the lens of the eye becomes thicker, harder, and more yel-low, and the pupil reduces in size. The hardening of the lens reduces its ability to change shape and, therefore, to accommodate for variations in distance. Impaired depth perception may cause a person to perceive a shadow as a step or a hole, and the visual misinterpretation can severely impair an individual’s abil-ity to function safely (Gaither, 2003). These alterations can have a substantial impact on the older worker’s ability to sense cues from the environment and can increase the likelihood of falling (Walton, 2001).
More lighting is also required as peo-ple age. Nighttime legibility distances of highway signs for drivers aged older than 60 was 65–77% of the legibility distance for drivers aged under 25 years with equal phototropic acuity. Dynamic visual acuity (DVA) is the ability to resolve details of a moving target (Haight, 2003). The decline of DVA occurs beginning around age 45, which would affect close to 30% of the work-force (Haight). Because older people have a reduced field of view and are more susceptible to scene clutter, they make much larger eye movements to scan the entire scene. Clutter (i.e., non-target information in the visual field)
and search deficiencies make it more difficult for older workers to see critical information and easier to miss it because of the clutter (Haight).
Older individuals would benefit from controls that were well lit; clean, unclut-tered displays; and individual task light-ing. The illumination should increase without creating glare. Glare is a minor problem for young people, but can cause a visual discomfort for older adults (Green, 2002). Facilities person-nel should also be cautious in using reflective paints, polished floors, or floor tiles that could cause glare. The Illuminating Engineering Society rec-ommends a brightness difference of no greater than three to one (Green). Print-ed material, including instructions and warnings, should be large (in at least 12-point font) and have high brightness contrast. Large type reduces eyestrain by decreasing vergence stress on the oculomotor muscles (Green). Black print on white is far superior to white on black for several reasons, including improved light adaptation, less glare on computer screens, and less contrast with the surrounding environment (Green). The proper size of signs is more difficult to specify because it depends on several factors, including the expected viewing distance. Older people have a restricted field of view, so they are least likely to notice signs that are not in their direct line of sight. Therefore, employers should study where workers are likely to be looking and place signs at eye level (Green). Company policies regard-ing eye exams should be implemented for personnel who work with computers or perform tasks that cause eyestrain (e.g., fine motor movements in an assembly line). For individuals experi-encing presbyopia, a loss of visual acu-ity at short distances, American Nation-al Standards Institute (ANSI) safety glasses can be provided with bifocal lenses. Eyestrain increases as people spend more time at their computers. Staff members at universities are typi-cally susceptible to visual problems because they spend over 5hr per day working at their computers (Berner & Jacobs, 2002).
Because older people are slower to adapt to changes in lightness and dark-ness, the lighting from one area to
another should be kept at a similar level (Green, 2002). Color-coding should be provided on changes in ramps and sur-faces to prevent falls, which are the leading occupational fatality among older workers (Hansson, DeKoekkoek, Neece, & Patterson, 1997; Toscano & Windau, 1993). Employers need to (a) identify specific hazards for slipping and tripping; (b) incorporate engineer-ing and administrative initiatives to reduce hazards, such as flooring and matting designed to deter slips, trips, and falls; (c) seek help immediately after falls; (d) treat musculoskeletal dis-orders promptly and effectively; (e) conduct periodic vision screening at the worksite; (f) raise awareness of medica-tion side effects that may contribute to drowsiness; and (g) refer any worker who feels faint or dizzy to a doctor (Healthy Living Work Smart, 1999). Employers should make handrails accessible, make landings well lit, and make steps and risers different colors or brightness compared with other traffic areas so they are more distinguishable (Green). Employers should avoid using a complex pattern on the steps because it can mask edges and encourage falls. They should use antislip surfaces on the treads to minimize potential hazards.
Hearing
Age-related hearing loss ( presbycu-sis) is thought to begin at about age 35, but becomes more pronounced with advancing age (Haight, 2003). Most older adults experience some decline in auditory function. Age-associated loss of hearing includes loss of sensitivity to pure tones and high-frequency tones, difficulty understanding speech, prob-lems localizing sounds, increased sensi-tivity to loud noises, and imbalance in equilibrium (Czaja, 1995; Scheiber, Fozard, Gordon-Salent, & Weiffenbach, 1991). This may lead to older workers’ inability to hear or recognize alarms, understand speech, or maintain balance and could cause them to develop vertigo (Province, Hadley, Hornbrook, Lipsitz, & Miller, 1995).
Research performed in a multiple- task environment shows that older workers score significantly lower than do younger workers in auditory task performance
(Haight, 2003). Older workers show poor auditory discrimination performance because of a reduced ability to strategi-cally allocate attention toward perfor-mance of auditory monitoring (Haight).
There are many ways to control noise exposure in the environment. Employers can do so by minimizing loud machinery and air conditioning as well as by mak-ing any music soft (Green, 2002). They could use sound-absorbing materials, including plants, carpeting, and window treatments, to reduce noise exposure. Another strategy is to avoid room designs or objects that create an echo. In conference rooms, tables should be made smaller and circular to facilitate communication. In addition, the use of light enhancements in conjunction with ringers and back-up alarms should be used to further alert those individuals with hearing difficulties.
Moreover, to detect hearing-related changes, it is integral to conduct audio-metric exams, which always should be done at baseline and annually for new employees in noisy work environments. Use of hearing protection should be required in both occupational and nonoccupational environments where exposure to loud noise may occur (Car-sia, 2002; Kotarbinska, 2005; Laitinen, 2005).
Musculoskeletal Changes
Decrease in Muscular Strength
Muscular strength, in general, peaks between the ages of 25 and 30. On aver-age, a person’s strength at 51–55 years of age is approximately 80% of what that person’s strength was at 31–35 years. There is a decline of approxi-mately 40% from 71–75 years com-pared with strength at ages 31–35 (Viitasalo, Era, Leskinen, & Heikkenen, 1985). Reduction of physical strength with increasing age is generally believed to be hazardous, especially to older workers in jobs requiring exertion of high muscular forces, such as lifting, lowering, carrying of moderate to heavy loads, and pushing and pulling of heavy carts on broken or inclined floors.
There are numerous studies that have indicated the benefits of strength train-ing and physical activity in older people to offset the natural physical declines of
aging. Processes should be automated whenever possible. In addition, job tasks should be modified to avoid pro-longed and excessive muscle contrac-tions. Policies should be developed that encourage sharp edges on tools (this is to avoid greater force using dull blades or objects), use of jigs and clamps instead of the hand to grip parts, mechanical assists rather than muscle, and partner-assisted lifts. Actions such as reaching above the head, twisting at the spine, and leaning to one side should be avoided (Gagnon, Plamondon, & Gravel, 1993; Patrick, 2004). These policies will benefit all age groups.
Reduction in Joint Mobility and Manual Dexterity
The most significant changes in our ability to move occur in our joints, par-ticularly small motor movements associ-ated with grasping, gripping, twisting, and turning, and large motor movements associated with walking, bending, sit-ting, climbing, stooping, and reaching. Changes in small motor movements affect one’s dexterity and ability to grasp, hold, and manipulate objects. As their ability to locate and identify textures and surfaces becomes impaired, it is increas-ingly difficult for people to grasp, hold, or manipulate small, smooth objects (Pirkl, 1995). Schwoerer and May (1996) examined the relationship between age, quality of tool design, and job perfor-mance. Results indicated that, among younger workers, tool quality was unre-lated to job performance. However, among older workers, quality of tool design made a significant difference. Those older workers with tools viewed to be poorly designed had the lowest per-formance ratings of all groups. In con-trast, older workers with tools of high design quality had the highest perfor-mance ratings of all groups.
Older adults tend to exhibit a more conservative reach by keeping elbows closer to the torso and do not elevate the shoulders as much as younger adults. Although this behavior is unexplained, it could be due to a concern for overex-tension injury and a perceived lack of strength rather than a true loss of range of motion (Haight, 2003). The differ-ence is more pronounced in longer
reaches. Reach should be minimized for tasks performed by older workers (Haight). Driving and similar tasks (e.g., operating a large piece of machin-ery) require responding continuously to spatial and temporal information from the environment and the equipment. In doing so, one must coordinate move-ment of the head, neck, and upper and lower limbs. Motor control is critical when one must brake, steer, turn, change lanes, merge, recover from a skid, start a pump, or drop the level in a storage tank (Haight). One of the most pervasive findings in age-related research is that motor performance slows with aging.
When working with fine motor skills or repetitive tasks, stretching and exer-cise techniques should be implemented. The work environment should be evalu-ated for unhealthy person–environment fit. For example, substituting levers or push buttons for knobs may help with people’s abilities to manipulate small objects. In addition, all tasks should be within a comfortable range of movement (Derebery, 1998; Frederick, 1992).
Slowing of Reaction and Movement Times
With age, all behavioral responses slow down. Part of this slowing down is explained by the declining efficiencies of the sensory organs and the muscu-loskeletal system (Davies & Mebarki, 1983). Depending on task complexity, older adults are slower to respond. Response speed has a linear relationship with task complexity (Haight, 2003). Older adults have more difficulty manag-ing or coordinatmanag-ing multiple tasks. Some research has suggested that age-related difference in performance of multiple tasks is reduced through training (Haight). Other research has suggested that performance is improved further if task performance order is flexible, mean-ing that the worker can decide in what order to perform tasks without penalty. From a performance standpoint, howev-er, older workers have much more expe-rience than younger workers. Through selective optimization by compensation (SOC), older workers apply previously learned skills to current situations, result-ing in comparable performance with
younger workers (Baltes & Baltes, 1990). This experience may enable older workers to achieve satisfactory perfor-mance, which will help them compensate for any slowing. However, when the job demands exceed the workers’ capacity, older workers may compensate by using increased physical effort or taking fewer rest periods to complete the task in a timely manner. Key considerations include allowance of longer response time, additional practice to increase familiarity, frequent refresher training, frequent reinforcement of task priority, reduction in the need for simultaneous performance of multiple tasks, or design-ing the system to be operated with low sensitivity to task order (Haight). Given the perceptual and cognitive changes that accompany the aging process, it is essen-tial that training programs be tailored to meet the needs of older adults. Studies have found that online training programs for staff workers in a University are gen-erally effective but need personal support and encouragement (Hayes et al., 2004).
Comorbidities and Chronic Diseases
Arthritis, high blood pressure, visual and hearing impairments, and obesity are among the disabling afflictions that affect workers (Healthcare Hazard Man-agement Monitor, 2002). For example, arthritis affects only 50.1 in 1000 people aged 18–44 years, but leaps to 240.7 in 1,000 people aged 45–64 years, and 453.1 in 1,000 people aged 65–74 years (Healthcare Hazard Management Moni-tor). In people aged 55–64, more than one in four men and one in three women are considered obese (Healthcare Hazard Management Monitor). In the university environment, individuals who disclosed their pain to their peers and supervisors showed a reduction in symptoms of chronic illness at work compared with individuals who did not disclose their pain (Munir, Leka, & Griffiths, 2005). Another emerging problem in the work-place deals with the use of medications in older adults. The use of medications may impact cognitive or physical abili-ties, as well as increase the risk of drug interactions when multiple medications are prescribed. Workers should under-stand side effects of medication and risks
of combining medications for safety pur-poses. In addition, the aging process includes increased incidence of sleep dis-orders and greater risk of depression, which can negatively impact physical and cognitive functioning (Healy, 2001). Many of these conditions could be reduced through behavior change. For example, weight loss has been shown to reduce coronary artery disease risk fac-tors, exercise can reduce mortality and risk of falls, and smoking cessation can result in rapid improvements in circula-tory and pulmonary functions. Further, within the first year of quitting smoking, risks for coronary artery disease and stroke begin to decline. Although approximately one fifth of those aged between 55–64 years are limited in their ability to carry out major activities, most chronic conditions are not debilitating or can be alleviated with medication, assis-tive devices, improved diet, or exercise (Healthcare Hazard Management Moni-tor). There is research on aging that indi-cates that chronological age is a weak predictor of capacity for productive per-formance in general and that perfor-mance does not decline with age (Health-care Hazard Management Monitor).
The University Environment
Faculty and staff at academic institu-tions are aging along with the rest of society. Low retirement rates and slow growth limit the hiring opportunities at most institutions (Clark & d’Ambrosio, 2005). To maintain high-quality faculty and staff, universities must develop employment practices that are appropri-ate for the new demographic environ-ment. Retirement programs that worked in the past may no longer be effective for the institution (Sugar, Pruitt, Anstee, & Harris, 2005). Educational programs for the older adult should include health issues, financial issues, and interpersonal issues. Proper training programs can also help workers perform their jobs safely. The physical workplace must also be prepared to accommodate workers aged older than 60 years. These accommoda-tions can be beneficial to all employees.
Conclusion
Among older adults, deterioration in health seriously affects the odds of
dropping out of the workforce. Howev-er, age-related changes do not always translate into impaired performance. Moreover, a body of research indicates that interventions to promote health and minimize these changes can have important beneficial effects (Clark & Nothwehr, 1999; Hultsch, Small, Hert-zog, & Dixon, 1999; King et al., 2000; Shipp & Branch, 1999).
The academic institution can play a seminal role in educating other public and private entities about aging in the work environment. Through a variety of academic, nonacademic, and continuing education alternatives, older adults can be trained to meet workforce demands. Emeriti or retiree centers that serve retired faculty, retired staff, and their spouse beneficiaries are emerging. These on-campus centers provide opportunities to cultivate retirees’ con-nections to the campus community (Glazer, Redmon, & Robinson, 2005).
The culture and values of the older worker are significant assets for the companies that choose to attract and retain them. These values include com-mitment and loyalty to the employer, fewer sick days, reduced injuries, and enhanced length of service. Accommo-dations for older workers are important in the changing workforce. Employers must be aware of the issues faced by older adults and how to accommodate them in the workplace. They should rec-ognize older workers’ importance in the workforce and their changing roles in their fields.
The multidisciplinary strategies detailed in this article provide a number of practical and inexpensive solutions to support employees across their working life span. Researchers have observed social and ecological health promotion approaches (using individual, organiza-tional, environmental, and regulatory tactics as leverage points for change) to be efficacious in other studies (Stokols, 1996; Stokols, McMahan, & Phillips, 2000). Collaborations with other work-place health promotion practitioners (i.e., safety, occupational health resources, wellness organizations, bene-fits, employee-assistance programs, and others) will provide the synergy to design, implement, and evaluate the strategies described in this article.
NOTE
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Shari McMahan, Profes-sor and Chair, Department of Health Science, California State University, Fullerton, PO Box 6870.
E-mail: smcmahan@fullerton.edu
REFERENCES
AARP Public Policy Institute. (2006, May).
Update on the aged 55+ worker: 2005(Data Digest No. 136). Washington, DC: S. E. Rix. Agnew, J., & Saruda, A. J. (1993). Age and fatal
work related falls. Human Factors: Journal of Human Factors and Ergonomic Society, 35,
731–736.
Baltes, P. B., & Baltes, M. M. (1990). Psycholog-ical perspectives on successful aging: The model of selective optimization with compen-sation. In P. B. Baltes, & M. M. Baltes (Eds.),
Successful aging: Perspectives from the behav-ioral sciences (pp. 1–26). New York: Cam-bridge University Press.
Berner, K., & Jacobs, K. (2002). The gap between exposure and implementation of computer workstation ergonomics in the workplace.
Work: Journal of Prevention, Assessment & Rehabilitation, 19, 193–199.
Carsia, T. (2002). Hearing protection. Designing workplaces for higher productivity. Occupa-tional Health and Safety, 71(9), 192–195. Clark, D. O., & Nothwehr, F. (1999). Exercise
self-efficacy and its correlates among socioeco-nomically disadvantaged older adults. Health Education and Behavior, 26, 535–546. Clark, R. L., & d’Ambrosio, M. (2005).
Recruit-ment, retention, and retirement: Compensation and employment policies for higher education.
Educational Gerontology, 31, 385–403. Czaja, S. J. (1995). Aging and work performance.
Review of Public Personnel Administration,15, 447–461.
Davies, B. T., & Mebarki, M. (1983). Speed of for-ward hand movement—the effects of age, sex, posture and hand. Ergonomics, 26, 1077–1079. Derebery, V. J. (1998). Determining the cause of upper extremity complaints in the workplace.
Occupational Medicine, 13, 569–582. Douglas, B., & Muran, S. (2000). The graying
workforce. Public Risk, 14(4), 22–24. Frederick, L. J. (1992). Cumulative trauma
disor-ders—an overview. American Association of Occupational Health Nurses,40, 113–116. Fullerton, H. N., Jr. (1999, November). The labor
force: Steady growth, changing composition.
The Monthly Labor Review,122(11), 19–32. Gagnon, M., Plamondon, A., & Gravel, D. (1993).
Pivoting with the load. An alternative for pro-tecting the back in asymmetrical lifting. Spine, 18, 1515–1524.
Gaither, A., (2003). Health and safety in an aging workforce. Retrieved October 23, 2003, from http://www.asse.org/gaitherpdcpaper.htm Garg, A. (1991). Ergonomics and the older
work-er: An overview. Experimental Aging Research 17, 143–155.
Glazer, S. D., Redmon, E. L., & Robinson, K. L. (2005). Continuing the connection: Emeriti/ retiree centers on campus. Educational Gerontol-ogy, 31, 363–383.
Green, M. (2002). Environmental design for the older worker. Occupational Health and Safety. Retrieved June 10, 2002, from http://www .ahealthyme.com/article/bellhowell/101804874; $sessionid$L32
Haight, J. M. (2003). Human error & the
chal-lenges of an aging workforce: Considerations for improving workplace safety. Professional Safety, 12, 18–24.
Hansson, R., DeKoekkoek, P. D., Neece, W. M, & Patterson, D. W. (1997). Successful aging at work annual review, 1992–1996: The older worker and transitions to retirement. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 51, 202–233.
Hayes, P., Ip, K., Saintas, P., Stanier, S., Palmer, H., Thomas, N., et al. (2004). Responding to technological change: IT skills and the academ-ic teaching profession. Active Learning in Higher Education, 5, 152–165.
Healthcare Hazard Management Monitor. (2002). The aging healthcare workforce: Implications for worker health and safety. Healthcare Haz-ard Management Monitor, 16(4), 1–8. Healthy Living Work Smart. (1999). Older
work-ers and falls. Healthy Living: Work Smart. Retrieved May 13, 2002, from http://www .health-alliance.com/contentarchive/september 99/work.html
Healy, M. L. (2001). Management strategies for an aging work force. AAOHN Journal, 49, 523–529.
Hultsch, D. F., Small, B. J., Hertzog, C., & Dixon, R. A. (1999). Use it or lose it: Engaged lifestyle as a buffer of cognitive decline in aging? Psy-chology and Aging, 14, 245–263.
Humphrey, T. (1999, October 27). 3.7 million people over 55 not working now are ready, will-ing and able to work. The Harris Poll #62. Har-ris Interactive, 1–9.
King, A. C., Pruitt, L. A., Phillips, W., Oka, R., Rodenburg, A., & Haskell, W. L. (2000). Com-parative effects of two physical activity pro-grams on measured and perceived physical functioning and other health related quality of life outcomes in older adults. Journal of Geron-tology: Medical Sciences, 55A, M74–M83. Kline, D. W., & Scheiber, F. (1985). Vision and
aging. In J. E. Birren & K. W. Schaie (Eds.),
Handbook of psychology and aging (pp. 296–331). New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. Kotarbinska, E. (2005). The influence of aging on
the noise attenuation of ear-muffs. Noise Health, 7(26), 39–45.
Laitinen, H. (2005). Factors affecting the use of hearing protectors among classical music play-ers. Noise Health, 7(26), 21–29.
Layne, L., & Landen, D. (1997). A descriptive analysis of nonfatal occupational injuries to older workers, using a national probability sam-ple of hospital emergency departments. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 39, 855–865.
Munir, F., Leka, S., & Griffiths, A. (2005). Deal-ing with self-management of chronic illness at work: Predictors for self-disclosure. Social Sci-ence & Medicine, 60, 1397–1407.
Patrick, R. W. (2004). Watch your back. Emer-gency Medical Services, 33(5), 128.
Pirkl, J. J. (1995). Transgenerational design: Pro-longing the American dream. American Society on Aging, 19(1), 1–14.
Province, M. A., Hadley, E. C., Hornbrook, M. C., Lipsitz, L. A., & Miller, P. (1995). The effects of exercise on falls in elderly patients. Journal of the American Medical Association, 27, 1341–1347.
Runge, J. (1993). The cost of injury. Emergency Medicine Clinics of North America, 11(1), 241–253.
Scheiber, F., Fozard, J. L., Gordon-Salent, S., & Weiffenbach, J. W. (1991). Optimizing sensation and perception in older adults. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 7, 133–162. Schwoerer, C. E., & May, D. R. (1996). Age and
work outcomes: The moderating effects of self-efficacy and tool design effectiveness.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17, 469–487.
Shipp, K. M., & Branch, L. G. (1999). Physical environment as a determinant of the health sta-tus of older populations. Canadian Journal on Aging, 18, 313–327.
Stokols, D. (1996). Translating social ecological theory into guidelines for community health promotion. American Journal of Health Promo-tion, 10, 282–298.
Stokols, D., McMahan, S., & Phillips, K. (2000). Workplace health promotion in small business. In M. P. O’Donnell (Ed.),Health promotion in
the workplace(3rd ed., pp. 493–518). Albany, NY: Delmar.
Sugar, J. A., Pruitt, K., Anstee, J. L., & Harris, S. G. (2005). Academic administrators and faculty retirement in a new era. Educational Gerontol-ogy, 31, 405–418.
Tibbitts, G. (1996). Patients who fall: How to predict and prevent injuries. Geriatrics, 51(9), 24–30. Toscano, G., & Windau, J. (1993). Fatal work
injuries: Results from the 1992 census. Month-ly Labor Review, 116, 30–48.
United States Equal Employment Opportunity Com-mission. (1997). The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967. Retrieved June 2, 2006, from http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/adea.html
United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (2002). The Americans With Dis-abilities Act. Retrieved June 2, 2006, from http://www.eeoc.gov/ada/adatext.html Viitasalo, J., Era, P., Leskinen, A., & Heikkenen,
E. (1985). Muscular strength profiles and anthropometry in random samples of men aged 31–35, 51–55, and 71–75 years. Ergonomics, 28, 1563–1574.
Walton, M. (2001). Graying, not falling. Occupa-tional Health and Safety. Retrieved July 25, 2005, from http://www.ohsonline.com/Stevens/ OHSPub.nsf/frame?open&redirect=http:// www.ohsonline.com/stevens/OHSpub.nsf/ PubArchive?openview
