The Seattle Longitudinal Study: Past, Present and Future
description
Transcript of The Seattle Longitudinal Study: Past, Present and Future
The Seattle Longitudinal Study: Past, Present and Future
K. Warner Schaie, Ph.D.
Sherry L. Willis, Ph.D.University of Washington
AcknowledgementsFunded in part by Grant R13AG030995-01A1 from the National Institute on Aging
The views expressed in written conference materials or publications and by speakers and moderators do not necessarily reflect the official policies of the Department of Health and Human Services; nor does mention by trade names, commercial practices, or organizations imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.
Work on the Seattle Longitudinal Study, data from which are reported here, has been supported by grants from:
The National Institute of Child Health and Human
Development (HD00367, 1963-1965; HD04476,1970-1973) and the National Institute of Aging(AG00480, 1973-1979; AG03544, 1982-1986; (AG04470, 1984-1989; AG08055, 1980-2006; currently AG024102, 2005-2015 and AG027759,2006-2008).
Scientific Collaborators
Elizabeth Aylward Paul Baltes Thomas BarrettUte Bayen Hayden Bothworth Paul BorghesaniJulie Boron Barbara Buech Grace CaskieHeather Chipuer Theresa Cooney Cindy de FriasRanjana Dutta Dennis Gerstorf Michael GilewskiJudith Gonda Kathy Gribbin Ann Gruber-BaldiniChristopher Hertzog Robert Intrieri Gina JayAlfred Kaszniak Iseli Krauss Eric LabouvieKaren Lala Thomas Ledermann Tara MadhyasthaHeiner Maier Scott Maitland Ann NardiJohn Nesselroade Ha Nguyen Ann O’HanlonIris Parham Robert Plomin Samuel PopkinMargaret Quayhagen Andrew Revell Anne RichardsAmy Roth Lindsay Ryan John Schulenberg Vicki Stone Charles Strother Linda TeriNicholas Turiano Gisela Vief Faika ZanjanElizabeth Zelinski
The Seattle Longitudinal Study (SLS) Major Topics
Age Changes and Age DifferencesAntecedents of Individual Differences in AgingCohort & Generational DifferencesInterventions to Slow Cognitive Aging Family StudiesMidlife Precursors of Cognitive Decline or Maintenance in Old Age
Conceptual Model of the SLS
Design of the Seattle Longitudinal Study
Study Waves1956 1963 1970 1977 1984 1991 1998 2005
S1T1 S1T2 S1T3 S1T4 S1T5 S1T6 S1T7 S1T8 (N = 500) (N = 303) (N = 162) (N = 130) (N = 92) (N = 71) (N = 38) (N = 26)
S2T2 S2T3 S2T4 S2T5 S2T6 S2T7 S2T8 (N = 997) (N = 420) (N = 337) (N = 204) (N = 161) (N = 104) (N = 74)
S3T3 S3T4 S3T5 S3T6 S3T7 S3T8 (N = 705) (N = 340) (N = 225) (N = 175) (N = 127) (N = 93)
S4T4 S4T5 S4T6 S4T7 S4T8 (N = 612) (N = 294) (N = 201) (N = 136) (N = 119)
S5T5 S5T6 S5T7 S5T8 (N = 628) (N = 428) (N = 266) (N = 186)
S6T6 S6T7 S6T8 (N = 693) (N = 406) (N = 288) S7T7 S7T8 (N = 719) (N = 421)
S = Sample; T = Time of Measurement
Cognitive Personlaity Lifestyle Health Biomarkers
5 PMA:
Voc
Reason,
Number
Space
Fluency
TBR
8 Activity Domains
ICD-A APO-E
6 Factors:
Verbal
Space
Number
Reason
Memory
Speed
NEO
Work
Enviornment
(Moos,
Schooler)
Self Report
Lipids
Homocystene
C-Reactive
Everyday Problems
13 PF Family
Environment
Pharmacy Neuroimaging
Neuropsych
Battery
Demographics
ABILITIES
Verbal Comprehension
Spatial Orientation
Inductive Reasoning
Numeric Facility
Perceptual Speed
Verbal Memory
Examples of Ability Test Items
Verbal MeaningVerbal Meaning
OLD a. Good b. Ancient c. Wise d. Respected
OLD a. Good b. Ancient c. Wise d. Respected
SpaceSpace
FF
ReasoningReasoning
a b w c d x e f b y d g a b w c d x e f b y d g
NumberNumber
a. b.
46 28 a. R W 15 39 b. R W 27 12 88 78
a. b.
46 28 a. R W 15 39 b. R W 27 12 88 78
TBR Measures: ExamplesA. Psychomotor Speed:
Composite of Two Measures:1. Copying Paragraph
“The DUKE carried a Sword.”2. Giving Antonyms or Synonyms
a. White - Blackb. White - Pale
B. Motor Cognitive Flexibility (Set Shifting):Composite of Measures
1. Ratio: Speed of Copying/Speed of Set Shifting(“The DUKE carried a Sword.”/”tHE duke CARRIED A sWORD”
2. Ratio: Antonyms or Synonyms Antonyms: WHITE - BlackSynonyms: white - pale
C. Attitudinal Flexibility:Questionnaire (T/F)
“It bothers me if people can’t make up their mind.”“I would go into a theatre without buying a ticket.”
Cross-Sectional Age Differences
Longitudinal Age Changes
Longitudinal Changes: Cognitive Styles (TBR Factors)
Separating Cohort Differencesfrom AGE Changes
Example of a Cohort-Sequential Data Set from the SLS
Example of a Cohort-Sequential Data Set from the SLS
1917 1956 1963 1970 1977 1984
1924 1963 1970 1977 1984 1991
1917 1956 1963 1970 1977 1984
1924 1963 1970 1977 1984 1991
Birth CohortBirth Cohort
39 46 53 60 6739 46 53 60 67
AgeAge
Studying Cohort/Generational Differences:
Cohort Studies
Family Studies
Cohort Studies
Cohort Effects in Cognitive Styles (TBR)
The Family (Generational) Study
Family Similarity in Intellectual Competence
Family Similarity in Cognitive Style
Similarity in Perception of Family Environment
Generational Difference in Abilities
Word Fluency
Verbal Meaning
Space
Reasoning
Number
Adult OffspringParentsGeneration
Occasion: 200319961989198419771970
62
60
58
56
54
52
50
48
New Family Studies
Third Generation Study
Studies of Rate of Change
Rate of Cognitive ChangeInductive Reasoning
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
25 32 39 46 53 60 67 74 81 88
Age
196619591952
194519381931
192419171910
190318961889
Rate of Cognitive ChangeVerbal Ability
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
25 32 39 46 53 60 67 74 81 88
Age
196619591952
194519381931
192419171910
190318961889
Crystallized Abilities:Verbal Meaning
50 60 70 80
Cohort Differences in Cognitive Aging: Higher Levels
Shallower Rates of Decline among Later-Born Cohorts
Fluid Abilities:Inductive Reasoning
50
60 70 80
0.60 SD *
0.57 SD *
Later-born cohorts (1914–1948)
Earlier-born cohorts (1883–1913)
Note. * p < .01
Note. Models covaried for gender, education, and presence of circulatory diseases. Gerstorf et al., 2009
Impact of Demographic Characteristics
EducationOccupation
Verbal Ability and Education
Verbal Ability and Occupation
Cognitive Interventions to Slow Aging
Remediation or New Learning
Need for Longitudinal Data
Targets of Intervention
Transfer of Training
Maintenance of Effects
Design of Training Study within SLS
PreTrain14 YrBooster 1Pre PostTrainingPre PostBooster 2Pre Post
1984Wave1991Wave1998Wave1970198419911998197719911998
19981984
Design of Training Study within Seattle Longitudinal Study
Occasion
Results of Cognitive TrainingResults of Cognitive TrainingResults of Cognitive TrainingReasoning Ability: 3 Training Waves
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1984 Wave 1991 Wave 1998 Wave
Space TrainReason Train
Maintenance of Cognitive Training Over 14 Years
Early Detection of Risk of Dementia
Neuropsychology Studies in Community Dwelling Persons
Genetic Studies: The ApoE Gene
Cognitive Training as Early Predictor of Impairment
Population Screened
Community Dwelling Adults Aged 60 +
Total Screened = 499
Neuropsychologists’ Consensus
Probably impaired: 12 (2.4%)Borderline: 22 (4.4%)Should be monitored: 111 (22.%)Normal: 354 (70.9%)
Community Dwelling Adults Aged 60 +
Total Screened = 499
Neuropsychologists’ Consensus
Probably impaired: 12 (2.4%)Borderline: 22 (4.4%)Should be monitored: 111 (22.%)Normal: 354 (70.9%)
Training and Cognitive Impairment: 28-Year Data
Training and Cognitive Impairment: 28 Year Data
36
38
40
42
44
46
48
50
52
54
56
1970 Pretrain
1984 Pretest
1984 Posttest
1991 Boost1 Pretest
1991Boost1 Post
1998Boost2 Pretest
1998Boost2Post
Time of Measurement
PMA Reasoning
Reas Normal
Reas Monitor
Reas Cog Im
Correlating Autopsy Findings with Cognitive Change
Current and Future Work withthe Seattle Longitudinal Study
Midlife Cognitive Change and Risk of Cognitive Decline
Key Questions:Is cognitive status and change in midlife predictive of
Subsequent cognitive riskSuccessful aging
Is midlife cognitive change related to brain volume and rate of change in brain volume?
What behavioral and health factors are related to cognitive change in midlife and old age?
Background:Stability of cognitive functioning is normative in midlife
Longitudinal studies indicate subgroups with cognitive decline or gain
Prospective dementia studies indicate lengthy preclinical phase beginning in late midlifeMulti-ability involvement in preclinical phaseCognitive reserve appears to develop early and may reduce risk of cognitive impairmentLimited study of brain-behavior associations in midlife
SLS Sample:
Older Cohort (b1914 - 1941) Ability data available in midlife and old age
N = 332
Middle Age Cohort (b1942 - 1962)Ability data available in midlife
N = 321
Development of Midlife Cognitive Risk Profile: 3 Abilities associated with Cognitive Impairment
Episodic MemoryReliable decline, stable, or gain in midlife
Executive Functioning Reliable decline, stable, or gain in midlife
Psychomotor SpeedReliable decline, stable, or gain in midlife
35
40
45
50
55
60
46 53 60 67 74
AGE
Delayed Recall t-score
Decline--ScanOA
Gain--ScanOA
Decline--ScanMA
Gain--ScanMA
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
46 53 60 67 74AGE
DLREC
EX
VOC
NUM
SPATIAL
REASON
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
46 53 60 67 74
AGE
DLRECEXVOCNUMSPATIAL
Specificity of Midlife Change Patterns: Longitudinal Data
Midlife Decline on Episodic Memory
Midlife Gain on Episodic Memory
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Midlife Decline
Midlife Gain
Midlife Decline
Midlife Gain
Adjusted means: ICV, Memory score age 60 Gainer - Old Age Decliner - Old Age
Long term Outcomes of Midlife Cognitive Change: Hippocampal Volume in Old Age
Borghesani et al. 2010
Scan OA Scan MA
35
40
45
50
55
60
46 53 60 67 74
AGE
Delayed Recall t-score
Decline--ScanOA
Gain--ScanOA
Decline--ScanMA
Gain--ScanMA
Scan MA Scan OA
EXAGE46
EXAGE53
EXAGE60
EXAGE67
EXAGE74
Ex Int
Ex Lin
Ex Quad
TDLAGE53
TDLAGE60
TDLAGE67
TDLAGE74
DR Int
DR Lin
COMORBIDITY
APOE4
MCR
Int ACTIVITIES
YR EDUC
GENDER
.37**
-.14
.21*
-.09*
-.24*
.06*
.22** .33**
.37**
.28*
Covariate Growth Parameter Average t Executive Intercept 21.653 14.039 Executive Slope -.102 -.290 Executive Quadratic -.003 -1.596 Delayed Recall Intercept 27.322 12.839 Delayed Recall Slope -1.139 -2.073
Years of Education Executive Intercept .374 12.928 Years of Education Delayed Recall Intercept .281 7.737 Motor Cognitive Flex Executive Intercept .368 12.891 Motor Cognitive Flex Delayed Recall Intercept .208 5.690 Gender Executive Intercept .223 8.346 Gender Delayed Recall Intercept .336 9.967 Intellectual Activities Executive Intercept .063 2.224 Motor Cognitive Flex Executive Quadratic -.136 -1.596 Comorbidity Delayed Recall Intercept -.086 -2.546 APOE 4 Delayed Recall Slope -.240 -2.073
Midlife Predictors: Level and Rate of Change in Memory & Executive Functions (Predictors Common to Memory and Executive versus Unique to One Ability)
Willis et al., 2010
Engagement in Midlife:Intellectual Activities
Work Environment in Midlife:Routinization in Work Activities
Societal Implications
Normative Decline of Cognitive Abilities Does not Occur until the mid-60sDecline Does not Become Substantial until the late 70s or early 80sSuccessive Generations Attain Higher Levels of Function and Show Later DeclineNormative Decline can be Slowed by Cognitive TrainingHigh Level of Educational and Occupational Status and Stimulating Environments Support Maintenance of Cognitive Function in Old Age
Implications for Clinical Practice
Cognitive Decline Prior to Age 60 May be an Indicator of Neuro- or PsychopathologyMidlife Cognitive Decline May be a Predictor of High Risk of Dementia in Old AgeCognitive Training May be a Useful Intervention for Delaying Onset of Clinically Diagnosable Dementia
Reference:
Schaie, K. W. (2005). Developmental influences on adult intelligence: The Seattle Longitudinal Study. New York: Oxford University Press
Web site URL:
http://www.uwpsychiatry.org/sls