Dimensionality of everyday problem solving in older adults.

Abstract

This study investigated individual differences in older adults' everyday problem-solving performance using 3 instruments. Past research, typically using only single measures, has yielded a multitude of findings regarding age effects in everyday problem solving. The present sample consisted of 111 older adults (44 men, 67 women) who ranged in age from 68 to 94 years. Confirmatory factor analyses revealed that, within each of the 3 instruments, subscales representing particular content domains could be reliably identified. There was, however, little relation between the different instruments, and the measures also differed in their relation with chronological age. These results support the view that everyday problem-solving competence is a multidimensional construct, of which previous investigations may only have studied particular dimensions.The goal of this study was to investigate how older adults' performance on everyday problem-solving tasks varies across methods of assessment. An increasing number of studies have focused on older adults' functioning on cognitive tasks of daily living (Hess, 1990;Poon, Rubin, & Wilson, 1989;Rogoff & Lave, 1984;Sinnott, 1989;Sinnott & Cavanaugh, 1991; Sternberg & Wagner, 1986), but most studies have considered performance only in delimited task domains, using single measures of performance. In addition, there has been little theoretical or empirical integration across studies of adult everyday problem solving. Several reasons exist for this. First, as a clearly identifiable subfield of inquiry, research into the everyday cognition of older adults is relatively new (Woodruff-Pak, 1989). Second, little consensus has been reached on what the defining task properties of everyday cognition might be and what the best methods for assessing these properties are. Indeed, even a standard nomenclature for distinguishing everyday cognition from other kinds of cognition does not yet exist; terms such as practical problem solving (Denney, 1989), everyday problem solving (Cornelius & Caspi, 1987), everyday cognition (Poon et al., 1989), pragmatics of intelligence (P. B. Baltes, 1987), and practical intelligence (Sternberg & Wagner, 1986), among others, have all been used. This diversity of labels, not surprisingly, reflects the even larger diversity of approaches that have evolved for the measurement of these constructs.Copyright 1995 by the American Psychological Association, Inc.Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed Sherry L. Willis, Department of Human Development and Family Studies, S-110 Henderson Building, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania 16802, or Michael Marsiske, Max Planck Institute for Human Development and Education, Lentzeallee 94, 14195 Berlin, Germany. After July 31, 1995, Michael Marsiske's address will be the Institute for Gerontology, Wayne State University, 87 East Ferry Street, 226 Knapp Building, Detroit, Michigan 48202. Electronic mail should be sent via Internet to slw@psuvm.psu.edu or to marsiske@geroserver.iog...

Academic Press is an imprint of Elsevier

“…In the Georgia Centenarian Study, which included participants in their sixties, eighties, and hundreds, age was strongly negatively associated with fluency in two studies (Poon et al, 1992;Holtsberg et al, 2002), although Holtsberg et al (2002) reported that age differences were actually confined to the best educated participants (perhaps because well-educated 60 year olds were more like Denney's middleaged subjects and had not yet experienced declines). Findings similar to those of Holtsberg et al's less educated adults were reported by Marsiske and Willis (1995). The latter study found no relationship between age and fluency (r ¼ À.08) on the Denney and Pearce (1989) task.…”

“…This is consistent with an analysis conducted by Marsiske and Willis (1995), who administered two social problem-solving measures (i.e., Cornelius & Caspi, 1987;Denney & Pearce, 1989) and one instrumental measure (Willis & Marsiske, 1995) in a single sample of older adults. Marsiske and Willis (1995) found no relationship between social problems and age, but a negative age relationship with the instrumental task. Sinnott (1989b), among others, has suggested that qualitative aspects of everyday problem solving require at least as much attention as actual performance.…”

“…The field of everyday problem solving has been characterized as heterogeneous or disordered (Allaire & Marsiske, 1999;Berg, 2005;Sinnott, 1989a;Marsiske & Willis, 1995), largely due to the diversity of problem types and scoring approaches used. Even nomenclature has varied, including practical problem solving (Denney, 1989), everyday cognition (Poon, Rubin, & Wilson, 1989), pragmatics of intelligence , and practical intelligence (Sternberg & Wagner, 1986).…”

Well- and ill-defined measures of everyday cognition: Relationship to older adults' intellectual ability and functional status.

“…Our findings suggest that the well-and ill-defined measurement approaches are distinct but related, and both may be important in predicting older adults' everyday functional competence, above and beyond the more context-free measures of cognition typically included in the adult development literature. Expressed differently, these findings can be used to further argue that everyday cognition should not be considered unitary but instead as a multidimensional construct (e.g., Marsiske & Willis, 1995). Thus, the study of everyday cognition will further benefit if a multiple-measurement framework, including both welland ill-defined measures, is incorporated into future studies.…”

Interplay of Cognitive Efficiency, Cognitive Ability and Motivation

“…Older adults were also reported to endorse more effective problem solving in comparison to middle-aged and younger adults [11]. Marsiske and Willis [12] supported the idea of multidimensionality of everyday problem solving. Based on older adults' reporting about having difficulties with tasks of cognition in a laboratory setting while feeling apparent efficacy managing everyday lives, Marsiske and Willis pointed out "an intuitive paradox".…”