Post-Disaster Cognitive Functioning in 2016 Louisiana ... · 2016: 7.1 trillion gallons of water...
Transcript of Post-Disaster Cognitive Functioning in 2016 Louisiana ... · 2016: 7.1 trillion gallons of water...
Tanushree Agrawal1, Emily M. Elliott
2, Matthew Calamia
2, Katie Stanko
2, Alyssa De Vito
2, & Katie Cherry
2
1University of California San Diego 2Louisiana State University
Post-Disaster Cognitive Functioning in 2016 Louisiana Flood Victims
Contact: [email protected] work is funded by the NSF (2016-2018) & the LSU
Office of Research & Economic Development (2017-2018)
Acknowledgments: We thank Sandro Galea (consultant),
as well as research assistants Masab Mansoor, Allison
McBride, Cayman Loader, Julia Rawls, Jordan
Qaddourah, Lilly LaPlace, Taylor York, Quyen Nguyen,
Victoria Desidare, Brooke Bose, Tim Carroll, Taylor
DelGreco, & Claire Landrieu
Background
• Previous research has shown that there are
decrements in cognitive functioning of
disaster survivors in the stressful periods
following the event1
• Unfortunately, it is incredibly challenging to
obtain data on the cognitive consequences
of disaster-related stress in the aftermath of
natural catastrophes
• One such event was the Great Flood of
2016: 7.1 trillion gallons of water (3x
Katrina) flooded 60,646 homes
• In a two-part longitudinal study, we analyze
these flood victims’ cognitive performance,
asking:
Did disaster stress (and prior disaster
exposure) impact cognitive
functioning, health, & well being during
the recovery phase?
• Here, we report results obtained from the
first wave of data collected on measures of
cognitive functioning.
Methodology
Future Work
• We lay the groundwork for
upcoming analyses assessing
disaster-related stress, sleep, and
mental health impacts on cognitive
functioning.
• These data will serve as a
baseline for comparison across
the different waves of this
longitudinal study.
• Cognitive performance measures
will be systematically compared to
results from prior studies with non-
disaster populations2,3 to determine
whether there are any significant
differences in our sample.
References
1. Cherry, K. E., Brown, J. S., Marks, L. D., Galea, S., Volaufova, J., Lefante, C., ... Jazwinski, S. M.
(2011). Longitudinal assessment of cognitive and psychosocial functioning after Hurricanes
Katrina and Rita: exploring disaster impact on middle-aged, older, and oldest-old adults. Journal
of Applied Biobehavioral Research, 16(3-4), 187–211.
2. Foster, J. L., Shipstead, Z., Harrison, T. L., Hicks, K. L., Redick, T. S., & Engle, R. W. (2015).
Shortened complex span tasks can reliably measure working mem. capacity. Memory &
Cognition, 43(2), 226–236.
3. Jackson, J. D., & Balota, D. A. (2012). Mind-wandering in younger and older adults: Converging
evidence from the sustained att’n to response task and reading for comprehension. Psychology
and Aging, 27(1), 106.
4. Raven, J., Raven, J. C., & Court, J. H. (1998). Manual for Raven’s progressive matrices & vocab.
scales. (1998 ed). Oxford: Oxford Psych.
5. Redick, T. S., Shipstead, Z., Meier, M. E., Montroy, J. J., Hicks, K. L., Unsworth, N., ... Engle, R.
W. (2016). Cognitive predictors of a common multitasking ability: Contributions from working
mem., att’n control, and fluid intelligence. Journal of Exp. Psychology: General, 145(11), 1473.
6. Salthouse, T. A. (2013). Within-cohort age-related differences in cognitive functioning.
Psychological Science, 24(2), 123–130.
7. Unsworth, N., Redick, T. S., Heitz, R. P., Broadway, J. M., & Engle, R. W. (2009). Complex
working memory span tasks and higher-order cognition: A latent-variable analysis of the
relationship between processing and storage. Memory, 17(6), 635–654.
Longitudinal Study: Wave 1 Results
PARTICIPANTS
• Final N = 156 (Screened for cog impairment: MoCA > 24)
• Residents of the greater Baton Rouge area
• A priori categorization into 3 flood severity groups
1. Non-flooded controls
2. Structural damage to homes
3. Structural damage to home & prior
damage during Katrina/Rita
• Tested on complex cognitive tasks, flood-related
stressors, sleep disturbance, & mental well-being
DEPENDENT MEASURES
1. Working Memory2:
2. Fluid Intelligence4,6:
3. Attention / Mind-Wandering3:
(std. scoring conventions2,3,5,7)
COVARIATES: Age, Education, SES
Operation
Span
Rotation
Span
Symmetry
Span
Raven’s
Matrices
Letter
Sets
Shipley
Abstraction
Sustained Attn to
Response (SART)
How does cog. functioning in this community-
drawn sample compare to prior studies?
Are these results a valid baseline for future
comparisons?
• Results follow broad trends seen in prior work
with undergraduate populations
• Performance varies considerably across
participants (higher std. dev. and ranges than in
other studies2,3)
• Significant negative correlations between
complex span scores and error rates in all WM
tasks, as expected
Are there any initial observable
relationships b/w flood stress & cognition? No significant differences in WM, gF,
or Sust. Attention across flood groups
Demographics
• Community-drawn sample varying in
education and income levels
• Diverse range of ages (mean age:
49.3 yrs, range: 18 - 88 yrs)
• 75.6% Female; 91.7% Caucasian
N %
Education
High school or less 14 8.0%
Some college/ specialized training 62 35.4%
College degree 67 38.3%
Master's/doctorate/professional degree 32 18.3%
Marital Status
Married 103 58.9%
Single/Divorced/Widowed 72 41.1%
Income
Less than $1000/month 20 11.4%
Between $1000 and $2000/month 26 14.9%
Between $2000 and $4000/month 49 28.0%
Between $4000 and $6000/month 37 21.1%
Over $6000/month 43 24.6%
Income Adequacy
Less than adequate 36 20.6%
Adequate or better 139 79.4%
Post-Disaster Cognitive Performance
Correlations b/w Standardized Cog. Measures
OpSpan
Operation Span
r(154) = -0.28,
p<0.001
Pro
cessin
g E
rro
rs r(154) = -0.40,
p<0.001
Rotation Span
Pro
cessin
g E
rro
rs
RotSpan
r(154) = -0.37,
p<0.001
Symmetry Span
Pro
cessin
g E
rro
rs
SymmSpan