OBJECTIVE: The study aim was to identify factors associated with racial differences in level of cognitive function in old age. METHOD: Older Black (n = 5,950) and White (n = 3,469) residents of a geographically defined urban community were randomly split into exploratory and confirmatory subgroups. A global measure of cognition was derived from 4 brief performance tests, and potential correlates of cognition (candidates) were selected from demographic, health-related, and experiential measures. In the exploratory subgroup, using a stepwise search algorithm, we examined the cognitive difference by race and then allowed candidate measures and Race × Candidate Measure interactions to enter the model. RESULTS: The cognitive score in the exploratory subgroup (M = 0.257, SD = 0.714) was a mean of 0.403 unit lower in Black persons than White persons (SE = 0.021, p < .001), and race accounted for 7% of cognitive variability. After the candidate selection process, 16 measures were retained, including 12 candidate measures and the 2-way interactions of race with education, age, reading/cognitive activity, and neuroticism. In this model, which accounted for 45% of the variability in global cognition, race was no longer associated with global cognition (coefficient = 0.012, SE = 0.110, p = .912). Findings were replicated in the confirmatory subgroup. CONCLUSION: These cross-sectional analyses suggest that consideration of demographic, health-related, and experiential factors greatly attenuates racial differences in late-life level of cognition. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved).
OBJECTIVE: The study aim was to identify factors associated with racial differences in level of cognitive function in old age. METHOD: Older Black (n = 5,950) and White (n = 3,469) residents of a geographically defined urban community were randomly split into exploratory and confirmatory subgroups. A global measure of cognition was derived from 4 brief performance tests, and potential correlates of cognition (candidates) were selected from demographic, health-related, and experiential measures. In the exploratory subgroup, using a stepwise search algorithm, we examined the cognitive difference by race and then allowed candidate measures and Race × Candidate Measure interactions to enter the model. RESULTS: The cognitive score in the exploratory subgroup (M = 0.257, SD = 0.714) was a mean of 0.403 unit lower in Black persons than White persons (SE = 0.021, p < .001), and race accounted for 7% of cognitive variability. After the candidate selection process, 16 measures were retained, including 12 candidate measures and the 2-way interactions of race with education, age, reading/cognitive activity, and neuroticism. In this model, which accounted for 45% of the variability in global cognition, race was no longer associated with global cognition (coefficient = 0.012, SE = 0.110, p = .912). Findings were replicated in the confirmatory subgroup. CONCLUSION: These cross-sectional analyses suggest that consideration of demographic, health-related, and experiential factors greatly attenuates racial differences in late-life level of cognition. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved).
Authors: Robert S Wilson; Laurel A Beckett; Lisa L Barnes; Julie A Schneider; Julie Bach; Denis A Evans; David A Bennett Journal: Psychol Aging Date: 2002-06
Authors: Fredric D Wolinsky; Suzanne E Bentler; Jason Hockenberry; Michael P Jones; Paula A Weigel; Brian Kaskie; Robert B Wallace Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2011-09-20 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Kumar B Rajan; Elizabeth A McAninch; Robert S Wilson; Jennifer Weuve; Lisa L Barnes; Denis A Evans Journal: J Alzheimers Dis Date: 2019 Impact factor: 4.472
Authors: Brittney S Lange-Maia; Aron S Buchman; Sue E Leurgans; Melissa Lamar; Elizabeth B Lynch; Kristine M Erlandson; Lisa L Barnes Journal: J Racial Ethn Health Disparities Date: 2021-08-17
Authors: Rebecca E Amariglio; Rachel F Buckley; Jennifer S Rabin; Kathryn V Papp; Yakeel T Quiroz; Elizabeth C Mormino; Kathryn P Sparks; Keith A Johnson; Dorene M Rentz; Reisa A Sperling Journal: J Alzheimers Dis Date: 2020 Impact factor: 4.472
Authors: Kharine R Jean; Cutter A Lindbergh; Catherine M Mewborn; Talia L Robinson; Marissa A Gogniat; L Stephen Miller Journal: J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci Date: 2019-10-04 Impact factor: 4.077
Authors: Rachel L Peterson; Kristen M George; Paola Gilsanz; Sarah Ackley; Elizabeth R Mayeda; M M Glymour; Dan M Mungas; Charles DeCarli; Rachel A Whitmer Journal: Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord Date: 2021 Apr-Jun 01 Impact factor: 2.703
Authors: Neika Sharifian; Yian Gu; Jennifer J Manly; Nicole Schupf; Richard Mayeux; Adam M Brickman; Laura B Zahodne Journal: Neuropsychology Date: 2019-08-26 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Jared J Tanner; Shivani Hanchate; Catherine C Price; Cynthia Garvan; Song Lai; Roland Staud; Hrishikesh Deshpande; Georg Deutsch; Burel R Goodin; Roger B Fillingim; Kimberly T Sibille Journal: J Alzheimers Dis Date: 2021 Impact factor: 4.472