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