“…The finding is in line with associations found between high rigidity and increased mortality (19). A possible conclusion is that a low validity reflects an ongoing disorder with a fatal course, or a decreased resistence to agentia which would otherwise not have led to death.…”
The three personality dimensions validity, solidity and stability according to Sjöbring were measured by means of the MNT scales in representative samples of 70-year-old men and women in Gothenburg, Sweden. They were followed up when 75 and 79. A longitudinal study was performed with regard to changes in means, standard deviations and sex differences. The means at 70 of the surviving subjects were compared with those of subjects who had died before the age of 79. The personality dimensions were, on the whole, unchanged between 70 and 79 except for a small increase in stability in men, implying a decrease in personal involvement, and a small decrease in validity in women implying lower levels of mental energy. There was also a decrease in solidity in men between 75 and 79 implying an increased tendency to dissociation. Variability and sex differences did not change. Men with low validity at 70 had an increased mortality. Cross-sectional studies would have given misleading results of the personality development in these age groups.
“…The finding is in line with associations found between high rigidity and increased mortality (19). A possible conclusion is that a low validity reflects an ongoing disorder with a fatal course, or a decreased resistence to agentia which would otherwise not have led to death.…”
The three personality dimensions validity, solidity and stability according to Sjöbring were measured by means of the MNT scales in representative samples of 70-year-old men and women in Gothenburg, Sweden. They were followed up when 75 and 79. A longitudinal study was performed with regard to changes in means, standard deviations and sex differences. The means at 70 of the surviving subjects were compared with those of subjects who had died before the age of 79. The personality dimensions were, on the whole, unchanged between 70 and 79 except for a small increase in stability in men, implying a decrease in personal involvement, and a small decrease in validity in women implying lower levels of mental energy. There was also a decrease in solidity in men between 75 and 79 implying an increased tendency to dissociation. Variability and sex differences did not change. Men with low validity at 70 had an increased mortality. Cross-sectional studies would have given misleading results of the personality development in these age groups.
“…Riegel et al [1967] and R iegel and Riegel [1972] pointed out that rate of decline, like rate of growth is dependent on both type of task and level of initial ability. Utilizing their own cohort-sequential analysis, they report that age is kinder to the initially more able on certain tasks (e.g.…”
A 20-year follow-up of 54 octogenarians, tested originally at a mean age of 64 years, revealed that the initially more able (estimated by vocabulary score) declined less on tests in a cognitive battery than did the initially less able. When classification was based on level of education rather than initial ability, the better educated showed the lesser decline. It is postulated that continuedintellectual activity throughout the life span may protect against intellectual decline.
“…The dementias have been estimated to be the underlying cause of death in at least 70,000–100,000 U.S. residents per year; if so, such a rate would make this disorder the fourth or fifth highest cause of death in the United States (1). Although dementia has been ignored in U.S. Vital Statistics Tables as a cause of death (2, 3), a large number of studies (4–25) have investigated its relationship to mortality (Appendix 1 ). However, although these studies have contributed much to our understanding of the relationship between dementia and mortality, they have not simultaneously answered three questions that are of epidemiologic import to the study of dementia:…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“… These studies have differed in at least four major ways: 1) the definition of mortality, e.g., years of survival (4–12), versus the probability of surviving X years (8–10, 12–25); 2) the definition of cognitive deficit, e.g., the fixed‐point psychiatric diagnosis of dementia (4–7, 13–25), versus cognitive decline (6, 8–12, 21–23); 3) univariate analyses of the association between dementia/cognitive deficit and mortality (4, 13–19, 24, 25) versus the use of multiple risk factors to predict mortality (5–12, 19–23); and 4) the use of institutional (4–6, 13–18, 20, 22, 24, 25) versus community samples (6–12, 19, 21, 23) for examining the foregoing relationships. …”
The relative importance of dementia, gender, age and functional status (FS) was examined for relationships to mortality within five years after admission of the subjects to a New York City nursing home for the aged. Using a random sample of 212 of the nursing home's patients, a statistical model was developed to estimate the relative risk of mortality. When this model was cross-validated on an independent sample of 118 residents, it failed to show significant lack of fit. Given these results, an international model was developed by combining the New York City samples(N = 330) and comparing them to a sample (N = 363) from a nursing home in Tokyo, Japan. In the new York model, gender was the most important predictor, with age and dementia next in importance; FS was not a significant predictor. Despite the apparent differences in the types of dementia in the New York and Tokyo nursing homes, the mortality patterns were similar.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.