Dorien Bangma

64 | CHAPTER 4 and an overall total score can be calculated, with higher scores indicating a better FDM capacity. The FACT is used in one study included in the review (i.e., Gill et al., 2019). 4. The Financial Competence Assessment Inventory (FCAI; Kershaw & Webber, 2008) assesses current financial competence using theoretical questions and functional tasks focused on financial abilities. The FCAI includes six domains, i.e., (1) ‘everyday financial abilities’, (2) ‘financial judgement’, (3) ‘estate management’, (4) ‘cognitive functioning related to financial tasks’, (5) ‘debt management’, and (6) ‘support resources’. Scores on all domains separately and a total score based on the sum of all domains can be calculated. Additionally, items can be recoded in four subscales based on the conceptual model of Appelbaum and Grisso (1988), i.e., (i) ‘understanding’, (ii) ‘appreciation’, (iii) ‘reasoning’, and (iv) ‘expressing a choice’. Higher scores indicate a better knowledge and understanding of financial competence. The FCAI is used in two studies included in this review (i.e., Gill et al., 2019; Kershaw & Webber, 2008). 5. The Financial Capacity Instrument (FCI; Marson et al., 2000) assesses financial knowledge and skills using tasks of different levels of complexity, such as counting coins and preparing bills. Depending on the version used, a maximum of nine domains can be differentiated with the FCI: (1) ‘basic monetary skills’, (2) ‘financial concepts’, (3) ‘cash transactions’, (4) ‘checkbook management’, (5) ‘bank statement management’, (6) ‘financial judgment’ (or ‘identifying fraud’), (7) ‘bill payment’, (8) ‘knowledge of personal assets’ (or ‘estate arrangements’), and (9) ‘investment decision- making’. Scores can be determined for each domain separately and total scores can be calculated using different combinations of the described domains. The most frequently used combinations are a total score based on the sum of all domains, sometimes except domain 8 since this latter domain is considered to be still experimental, and a total score based on domains 2, 3, 5 and 7. One study (Gerstenecker et al., 2018) extracted four new domains of the FCI using factor analysis, i.e., (1) ‘basic monetary knowledge and calculation skills’, (2) ‘financial judgment’, (3) ‘financial conceptual knowledge’, and (4) ‘financial procedural knowledge’. Higher scores indicate a better financial capacity. The FCI is used in twenty-two studies included in this review (i.e., Clark et al., 2014; Earnst et al., 2001; Gerstenecker et al., 2016, 2018, 2019; Gerstenecker, Hoagey, et al., 2017; Gerstenecker, Myers, et al., 2017; Griffith et al., 2003, 2007, 2010; Lassen- Greene et al., 2017; Marson et al., 2000; Martin et al., 2013, 2019; Martin, Griffith, et al., 2008; Niccolai et al., 2017; Okonkwo et al., 2006, 2009; Sherod et al., 2009; Stoeckel et al., 2013; Tracy et al., 2017; Triebel et al., 2009). 6. The Financial Capacity Instrument – Short Form (FCI-SF; Tolbert et al., 2019) assesses complex financial abilities and is a modified shorter version of the FCI. Five domains, i.e., (1) ‘mental calculation’, (2) ‘financial conceptual knowledge’, (3) ‘single checkbook/register task’, (4) ‘complex checkbook/register task’, and (5) ‘using bank statement’ are included. Scores can be determined for all five domains separately and a total score based on the sum of these five domains can be calculated, with higher scores indicating a better financial capacity. The FCI-SF is used in one study included in this review (i.e., Tolbert et al., 2019).