A rapid scoping review published in the European Journal of Ageing has identified significant gaps in the current understanding of psychological capacity, a key component of the World Health Organization’s framework for healthy ageing. The study, conducted by researchers including Candice Oster and Vivian Isaac, systematically mapped existing definitions and attributes of psychological capacity to inform the development of a standardized measure. The review found that while the concept is widely discussed, there is no established definition specific to healthy ageing, and the existing literature is heavily skewed toward workplace contexts rather than older adult populations.
The World Health Organization introduced the concept of intrinsic capacity in 2015 as a central determinant of healthy ageing. Intrinsic capacity encompasses the physical and mental capacities an individual can draw upon at any point in time, including locomotor, cognitive, sensory, vitality, and psychological capacity. Despite its importance in the WHO’s Decade of Healthy Ageing, psychological capacity has remained poorly defined. Previous approaches have often relied on deficit-based framing, such as using the absence of depression as a proxy for psychological health, which fails to capture the strengths and functional abilities necessary for thriving in later life.
The primary objective of this rapid scoping review was to identify definitions and attributes of positive psychological capacity to guide the creation of a new measure. The researchers aimed to shift the focus from deficit-based perspectives to a strength-based approach that aligns with the WHO’s intrinsic capacity framework. By exploring a breadth of definitions and attributes from various study designs, the team sought to clarify what psychological capacity means conceptually and how it can be operationally measured in older adults.
The review employed a modified JBI methodology for scoping reviews, incorporating guidance from Cochrane rapid review recommendations. Searches were conducted across four major databases: PsycINFO, PubMed, Embase, and Scopus. The search strategy targeted English-language publications from January 1, 2010, to April 16, 2025. This timeframe was selected to capture the growth in the use of the term “psychological capacity” in academic literature and to capture the literature preceding the publication of the WHO World Report on Ageing in 2015.
From 603 retrieved records, 78 studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the final analysis. The inclusion criteria required studies to provide a specific conceptual or operational definition of psychological capacity or psychological capital, or to name attributes related to these concepts. Studies using a deficit viewpoint or focusing on mental illness were excluded. Two independent reviewers screened titles and abstracts, and full texts were assessed against the criteria. Data extraction was performed by one reviewer and checked for accuracy by another, with attributes inductively identified and grouped into categories.
The results revealed a significant heterogeneity in how psychological capacity is defined and measured. The majority of the included studies, 59 percent, were conducted in workplace contexts, driven by goals of performance and competitive advantage. Only two studies, representing 2.5 percent of the total, specifically related to older adults aged over 65. This disparity highlights a critical gap in the literature, as the dominant framework is rooted in organizational psychology rather than gerontology or healthy ageing.
The researchers identified eight distinct definitions of psychological capacity across the included studies. Additionally, 56 attributes of psychological capacity were identified and grouped into nine domains: psychological; resilience and adaptability; cognitive process and function; emotion; social and interpersonal competence; self-identity, values, and agency; physical and spatial-temporal orientation; behaviour; and well-being and life satisfaction. The most frequently occurring attributes were hope, self-efficacy, resilience, and optimism, which are central to Luthans’ concept of psychological capital.
Attributes were classified into three functional categories: antecedents, processes, and outcomes. Antecedents are relatively stable, trait-like characteristics that provide a foundation for adaptive functioning, such as self-efficacy or optimism. Processes are state-like capacities, such as coping or emotional regulation, that enable individuals to draw on these assets in daily life. Outcomes reflect experiential results, including well-being or life satisfaction, which arise from the effective use of psychological capacities. This classification is essential for developing measures that accurately capture the dynamic nature of psychological capacity as a core resource for healthy ageing.
The review found that 34 attributes were classified as experience or outcome attributes, 30 as process attributes, and 14 as antecedent attributes. There was considerable overlap, with 15 attributes classified as both process and outcome, and four as both antecedent and process. This complexity illustrates that psychological capacity is a multidimensional construct encompassing mental, emotional, and social resources that enable individuals to adapt and function across different life contexts. The findings suggest that a simple sum of individual attributes may not fully capture the higher-order construct of psychological capacity.
Limitations of the study include its rapid review design, which did not extend to the full methodology of a standard scoping review. The search was limited to English-language published articles, potentially excluding relevant grey literature or studies in other languages. Additionally, no formal quality appraisal of included studies was undertaken, consistent with scoping review methodology. The screening criteria and data extraction tools were not piloted, and data extraction was performed by a single reviewer with checking by a second, rather than independent extraction by two reviewers.
Despite these limitations, the review provides a robust foundation for future research. The identified attributes will serve as a starting point for establishing conceptual and operational definitions of psychological capacity for healthy ageing. The research team plans to use an International Working Group of experts to develop a draft definition based on the identified attributes. This will be followed by a three-round Delphi survey process to gain expert consensus on the final definition and attributes.
The outcome of this process will be an operational definition of psychological capacity and a list of items for a scale to measure it. This scale will subsequently undergo translation, cultural adaptation, psychometric testing, and validation to ensure it is applicable across diverse cultural contexts. By adapting the concept of psychological capacity within the WHO’s intrinsic capacity framework, the researchers aim to create a valid and culturally appropriate measure that reflects the realities of ageing populations globally. This work is crucial for monitoring progress towards healthy ageing and developing interventions that support psychological capacity across the life course.
The review’s methodology incorporated specific modifications to standard scoping review procedures to accommodate a rapid timeline. While the study utilized a modified JBI methodology and Cochrane rapid review recommendations, it did not involve knowledge users in the design or interpretation of the findings. Furthermore, the search timeframe was restricted to the past 15 years, a decision based on preliminary data indicating a growth in the use of the term “psychological capacity” in academic literature from around 2010 to 2011. This period also captured the literature preceding the 2015 WHO World Report on Ageing, which formally incorporated the concept of intrinsic capacity.
Data extraction and analysis involved a single reviewer who extracted data from each included study, with a second reviewer checking for accuracy. This approach differed from the standard recommendation of independent extraction by two reviewers, a limitation the authors noted but argued was sufficiently robust to identify a wide range of attributes. The extracted data were exported into Microsoft Excel, where characteristics of the included studies were collated into tables and figures. Psychological capacity attributes were inductively identified from the text data before being grouped into categories. The research team used Microsoft CoPilot AI to perform the initial grouping of these previously identified attributes, a step that did not generate new concepts. The team then carefully checked, discussed, and refined these groupings without further AI use, adhering to guidelines for human oversight in evidence synthesis.
The heterogeneity in definitions was further complicated by inconsistent terminology across the included studies. Twenty-two papers, representing 28 percent of the total, used both the terms “psychological capacity” and “psychological capital.” Thirty-five papers, or 45 percent, used only “psychological capacity” or “capacities,” while 12 papers, or 15 percent, used only “psychological capital” or the abbreviation “PsyCap.” This terminological variation reflects the broader lack of consensus in the field. Seventy papers, accounting for 90 percent of the included studies, provided a descriptive definition or elaboration of the concept. Operational definitions, which specify how to measure the construct, were provided in 41 papers, while conceptual definitions, which explain what the concept means, were found in 39 papers. Twenty-seven papers included both types of definitions along with specific attributes.
Several studies cited the work of Luthans and colleagues to explain the nature of psychological capital. These descriptions characterized PsyCap traits as state-like and open to development, distinguishing them from trait-like characteristics that are relatively fixed. One detailed explanation positioned PsyCap traits in the middle of a continuum, noting that they are more stable and less changeable than momentary emotions and moods, yet more trainable and flexible than rigid personality traits. Other studies likened psychological capacity to “soft skills,” describing them as essential for interacting with others and adjusting to different situations, a framing that further underscores the workplace origins of much of the existing literature.
The review also highlighted potential overlaps between the identified attributes of psychological capacity and other domains of intrinsic capacity defined by the WHO. For instance, twelve attributes were grouped under “Cognitive process and function,” including decision making, judgement, and perception. The authors noted that these mental capacities arguably align more closely with the “Cognition” domain of intrinsic capacity. Similarly, attributes grouped under “Physical and spatial-temporal orientation,” such as mobility and physical fitness, were observed to align better with the “Locomotion” domain. This overlap suggests that the boundaries between psychological capacity and other intrinsic capacities may be less distinct than previously assumed, requiring further refinement to confirm which attributes are uniquely psychological in the context of healthy ageing. The authors plan to address this through future expert consensus processes.
Understanding the causal mechanisms behind these attributes remains a significant challenge. The review identified a limited understanding of how the various attributes interact and how antecedents, processes, and outcomes are disassociated. For example, the specific factors that cause an individual to develop resilience or hope are not yet fully understood. Such knowledge is essential for designing effective interventions at both the individual and population levels.
Subject of Research: Rapid scoping review of psychological capacity definitions and attributes for healthy ageing
Article Title: Defining psychological capacity for a measure of healthy ageing: a rapid scoping review
Article References: Oster, C., Windle, A., Hines, S., Hagani, N., Khadka, J., & Isaac, V. (2026). Defining psychological capacity for a measure of healthy ageing: a rapid scoping review. European Journal of Ageing, 23(1), Article 38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10433-026-00933-w
Image Credits: AI Generated
DOI: 10.1007/s10433-026-00933-w
Keywords: healthy ageing, psychological capacity, intrinsic capacity, scoping review, WHO framework, gerontology, positive psychology, psychological capital, older adults, health measurement, Defining, psychological
News Source: Beatrice Stafford. (November 8, 2026). Study Maps Psychological Capacity for Healthy Ageing. Scienmag.
