Skip to main content
PMC home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2011 Oct 1.
Published in final edited form as: Exp Aging Res. 2010 Oct;36(4):394–425. doi: 10.1080/0361073X.2010.509010

Cognitive Function, Physical Performance, Health, and Disease: Norms from the Georgia Centenarian Study

Adam Davey 1, Merrill F Elias 2, Ilene C Siegler 3, Uday Lele 4, Peter Martin 5, Mary Ann Johnson 6, Dorothy B Hausman 6, Leonard W Poon 6; for the Georgia Centenarian Study6,1
PMCID: PMC2941913  NIHMSID: NIHMS224733  PMID: 20845120

Abstract

This study provides, for the first time, normative data on cognitive functioning and physical performance, health and health behaviors, and diseases from a population-based sample of 244 centenarians and near-centenarians (M age = 100.5 years, range 98-108, 84.8% women, 21.3% African American) from the Georgia Centenarian Study. Data are presented by the four key dimensions of gender, race, residence, and educational attainment. Results illustrate the profound range of functioning in this age group and indicate considerable differences as a function of each dimension. Bivariate models generally suggest that cognitive functioning and physical performance is higher for: men than women; whites than African Americans; community than facility residents; those with more than high school education than those with less than high school education. Multivariate models elaborate that differences in educational attainment generally account for the largest proportion of variance in cognitive functioning and residential status generally accounts for the largest proportion of variance in physical performance measures. Addition of health variables seldom increases variance accounted for in each domain beyond these four dimensions.

Centenarians provide an excellent model for aging by virtue of the fact that they have come very close to reaching the maximum lifespan. They afford an opportunity to examine questions about both normal and pathological components of aging and longevity. Although they represent an ever growing proportion of the older adult population, centenarians remain extremely rare. Most publicly available data resources on aging include data from few, if any, centenarians. Even fewer provide information across a wide range of content areas including physical and functional capacity, cognition, and diseases.

Exceptional longevity is a heterogeneous phenotype. Sebatiani and colleagues (2010) recently reported that even the genetics of exceptional longevity are complex. Their genome wide association scan identified 150 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) which were more common in centenarians than controls. These SNPs could be further clustered into 19 different genotypes. These genotypes, in turn, had different associations with age at death, likelihood of age-associated diseases, and age of disease onset.

To date, we know very little about the extent of heterogeneity in cognitive function, physical performance, health and health behaviors, and diseases among centenarians, particularly in the population-based context and differences across major demographic variables such as gender, race, residential status, and educational attainment. Two previous papers in Experimental Aging Research have included extensive normative data on neuropsychological test performance with stratification by multiple age groups and education (Dore et al., 2007; Au et al., 2004), but neither reported normative data for persons over 100 years of age.

The absence of normative data for the oldest old is related to the fact that measurement of cognitive and functional capacity, health and disease has received scant attention. This is unfortunate because centenarians are at particular risk of functional impairment which results in considerable utilization of health care resources (Krach, DeVaney, DeTurk, & Zink, 1996; Muller, Fahs, & Schechter, 1989; Rock et al., 1996) and is strongly predictive of both institutionalization and mortality (Fried et al., 1998; Inouye et al., 1998; Ogawa, Iwasaki, & Yasumura, 1993; Sonn, 1996; Worrall, Chaulk, & Briffett, 1996). Status on cognitive and physical functioning measures remains poorly documented with this age group but is of critical importance in maintaining a satisfactory quality of life in exceptional longevity. Knowledge of critical factors affecting everyday functioning can permit development of effective interventions which capitalize on or enhance retained abilities, facilitating recovery, maintenance, or improvement of functional capacity (e.g., Fortinsky, Covinsky, Palmer, & Landefeld, 1999). Earlier research with centenarians has often been limited to small sample sizes or subsets of the population such as those with intact cognition or male veterans (e.g., Evert et al., 2003; Gondo et al., 2006; Holtsberg et al., 1995; Selim et al., 2005; Silver et al., 2001). Consequently, we present normative data for cognitive and physical performance measures gathered in the Georgia Centenarian Study in order to expand the age groups for which norms on neuropsychological test scores, functional abilities, and disease comorbidities are available. Growth in the centenarian population has also been staggering. In 2000, there were an estimated 50,454 centenarians in the US, representing approximately one in 5,000 members of their birth cohort, but this number is projected to rise to well over 800,000 by 2050 (Krach & Velkoff, 1999), making normative data of vital importance.

Projections from Vaupel and colleagues (Christensen et al., 2009) suggest that fully half of all children born in industrialized nations today can expect to live until their 100th birthday. The current study provides much needed normative data for centenarians and serves to highlight the continued importance of differences along the axes of gender, race, residence, and educational attainment. More importantly, it suggests that centenarians have considerable levels of physical and cognitive limitations, and often survive to these ages despite substantial burden of disease.

Methods

Sample

Centenarians and near centenarians (age 98 and older) were recruited from a 44-county area of northern Georgia using a sampling plan with two components. The first called for a census of all skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) and personal care homes (PCHs) located in the 44-county area and for the identification of all residents of a sample of those facilities who are age 98 and older. The second component relied on lists of registered voters, again across the entire 44-county area, and using the date-of-birth information contained on those lists to identify individuals who were age 98 and older. There was some overlap between these components (that is, some residents of SNFs and PCHs were also found on voter registration lists), but the voter registration lists contained a much higher proportion of the non-institutionalized than of the institutionalized.

To achieve control over the number of participants and maximize the proportion of respondents who were over age 100, the 44 counties were divided into four strata, defined to be mostly contiguous and with approximately the same number of centenarians according to the 2000 census population enumeration. The target population for each of the four strata was defined as persons residing within the geographic boundaries of the stratum who were age 98 or older by the beginning of the field period for that stratum which were spaced approximately 6 months apart. Some parameters of this design such as sampling fractions were intentionally left flexible to permit modifications to be made over the data collection period to allow the targeted sample sizes to be achieved while maintaining control over costs.

Lists were generated of SNFs and PCHs in each of the 44 counties and of the number of beds in each of those facilities. Interviewers called each of the selected facilities, explained the study, and requested the names of all centenarians and (if called for by the sample specifications) near-centenarians currently residing in that facility. To implement the second component of the sample design, we listed all centenarians and near-centenarians (that is, all individuals who had their 98th birthday on or before the date of the start of data collection in a given stratum), who were on the voter registration file and whose address indicated that they resided in one of the counties in that stratum. Overall, we succeeded in identifying and recruiting 244 of the estimated 1244 (19%) of all centenarians living within the 44 county region. Comparison with special census tabulations indicated that, barring some minor differences, our sample appeared broadly representative of the characteristics of centenarians within this region (see Arnold et al., 2010 and Poon et al., 2007 for further details).

Procedures

The comprehensive nature of this study required that a data collection team meet centenarians at their place of residence. To keep the testing burden to a minimum, data collection was divided into four sessions, each of which could be completed within two hours.

Measures

Demographic Variables

Data were compared across the major demographic variables of gender (men, n = 37; women, n = 207), race (white, n = 192; African American, n = 52), residence (community, n = 91; skilled nursing facility or personal care home, n = 153), and educational attainment (less than high school, n = 84; some high school, n = 31; high school graduate, n = 59; more than high school, n = 63, and n = 7 unknown).

Cognitive Functioning

Tests and assessments were designed to capture the wide range of cognitive functioning that was expected in this group and to include measures which would be valid for individuals with sensory impairment. Measures included the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) (Folstein et al., 1975), Global Deterioration Scale (Reisberg et al., 1982), Severe Impairment Battery (Saxton et al., 1990), Fuld Object Memory Evaluation (FOME, Fuld 1981), Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-III, Similarities sub-test (Wechsler, 1997), Finger Tapping (Reitan & Wolfson, 1993), Behavioral Dyscontrol Scale (DBS, Grigsby et al., 1992), ILS Health and Safety Scale (Loeb, 1992), and Controlled Oral Word Association Test (Benton & Hamsher, 1997).

Physical Performance

Grip strength was assessed using the Jamar (Detecto, Jackson, MI) hand grip dynamometer. Peak force was recorded to the nearest tenth kilogram (0.1 kg) for each hand. Analyses use the average peak value across both hands (average values correlated r > .97 with values obtained from each hand). Knee extensor strength was tested using a manual muscle manometer (Nichols, Lafayette, IN). Peak force to the nearest tenth kilogram (0.1 kg) was calculated for each leg. Analyses use the average peak value across both legs (average values correlated r > .98 with values obtained from each leg).

Physical functional capacity was measured with the NIA Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB, Guralnik,1994) and Physical Performance and Mobility Examination (PPME, Winograd et al., 1994). A performance-based measure included selected subtests of the Direct Assessment of Functional Status-Revised (DAFS-R, Loewenstein 1989) measuring basic (BADL) and instrumental (IADL) activities of daily living. Self-reported BADLs and IADLs were also assessed using the OARS (Fillenbaum, 1988).

Health and Health Habits

The Mini Nutritional Assessment was used to assess risk factors related to poor nutritional status such as physical and mental health, anthropometrics, and food intake (Guigoz et al., 1996). The original scale was adapted to impute from other data sources information related to neuropsychological problems, psychological stress and acute disease. Original summary score ranges from 0 to 30, but our scale had a maximum of 28 because individuals were not asked to provide a self-report of their nutritional status (2 points).

Current height and weight were measured with a scale and stadiometer, recorded from the medical chart, or from self or proxy report as possible for the participant and used to calculate body mass index (BMI) in kg/m2. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (1998) criteria were further used to define under weight (< 18.5 kg/m2), normal weight (18.5-24.9 kg/m2), overweight (25-29.9 kg/m2), and obese (≥30 kg/m2).

Non-fasting blood samples were collected. Plasma vitamin B12 was measured by Quantaphase II Vitamin B12/Folate Radioassay (Bio-Rad, Richmond, CA; Johnson et al., 2010). Serum total homocysteine was analyzed by capillary gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (Stabler et al., 1988; Allen et al., 1993; Johnson et al., 2010). Systolic and diastolic blood pressure measures were obtained once with a brachial cuff and used to calculate pulse pressure (systolic BP - diastolic BP) in either sitting (n = 215) or reclining (n = 26) as possible for the participant; there were no differences in values as a function of posture. History of tobacco and alcohol use was also assessed.

Lifetime Prevalence of Reported Diseases

A physical examination included questions about the diagnoses of numerous classifications of diseases across a variety of organ systems including depression, cardiovascular disease, psychiatric illness, cancer, neurological disorders, kidney disease, osteoporosis, diabetes, hypertension and stroke. Multiple sources could be consulted to obtain this information from the best available source or sources. These included self-report, proxy report, health care professionals, and medical records.

Statistical Analysis Plan

Analyses were conducted using Fisher's exact test, Kruskal-Wallis rank tests, t-tests (homogenous or heterogeneous variances, as appropriate), one-way analyses of variance (Sidak post-hoc comparisons for significant omnibus tests), factorial ANOVAs, ANCOVAs, and correlations as appropriate to question, level of measurement, and assumptions. Tests used for each analysis are indicated in each table of results.

Results

Results are presented separately according to four dimensions: gender (men, women), race (white, African American), residence (community, facility), and educational attainment (less than high school, some high school, high school graduate, more than high school). Bivariate analyses are followed by a summary of the factorial ANOVAS and multiple regression models. Bivariate correlations between cognitive and physical performance measures across each demographic dimension are presented in the Appendix.

Comparison of GCS Sample with Nationally Representative Data

Table 1 compares the age distributions of the GCS sample with the Health and Retirement Study / Aging and Health Dynamics among the Oldest Old (HRS/AHEAD, N = 30,888, taken at their oldest age of interview), and National Long-Term Care Survey 2004 (NLTCS, N = 20,474, including an oversample of those 95+) and presents characteristics of the GCS sample along dimensions of gender, race, residential status, and educational attainment. As can be seen, the GCS has data from more individuals than the HRS/AHEAD and NLTCS at all ages between 99 and 106. It compares favorably in terms of mean age of the sample, proportion of women, and has the largest proportion of African Americans of the three data sources.

Table 1.

Comparison of Georgia Centenarian Study Sample with Health and Retirement Study and National Long-Term Care Survey 2004 by Ages 98+

N (Column %) by Source
Age in Years GCS HRS/AHEAD (All) NLTCS 2004
98 29 (11.9) 56 (39.2) 93 (36.8)
99 64 (26.2) 27 (18.9) 55 (21.7)
100 49 (20.1) 24 (16.8) 36 (14.2)
101 38 (15.6) 16 (11.2) 26 (10.3)
102 20 (8.2) 10 (7.0) 19 (7.5)
103 23 (9.4) 3 (2.1) 6 (2.4)
104 10 (4.1) 2 (1.4) 11 (4.3)
105 5 (2.0) 1 (0.7) 2 (0.8)
106 3 (1.2) 2 (1.4) 2 (0.8)
107 0 (0.0) 1 (0.7) 3 (1.2)
108 1 (0.4) 1 (0.7) 0 (0)
109 2 (0.8) 0 (0) 0 (0)
Total 244 143 253
Mdn Age 100 99 99
Mean Age 100.5 99.6 99.7
% Female 84.8 81.1 86.6
% Non-white 21.3 17.5 11.9
Open in a new tab

Gender

Results comparing men and women are presented in Table 2. Men showed better cognitive function on the MMSE, GDRS, FOME recognition and retention, on the SIB, and MNA. Men also showed better physical performance in terms of grip strength, leg extension strength, OARS BADLs, DAFS BADLs and IADLs, and the PPME. With regard to health and health habits, men were more likely than women to be former or current smokers and to report former and current alcohol use. Differences in lifetime disease categories were such that women were more likely than men to report depression, psychiatric illness, and osteoporosis whereas men were more likely to have a neurological disorder.

Table 2.

Descriptive Statistics by Gender

Men Women
Cognitive Functioning N M SD Min Max N M SD Min Max p-value
MMSEb 37 18.81 7.75 0 30 207 15.73 8.92 0 30 0.050
GDRSd 37 3.51 1.39 1 6 203 4.15 1.72 1 7 0.036
FOME Delayed recallb 37 3.32 2.73 0 9 198 2.83 3.13 0 10 0.368
FOME Delayed recognitionb 37 3.86 2.29 0 8 198 2.85 2.46 0 9 0.021
FOME Retentionb 37 7.19 3.61 0 10 198 5.68 4.09 0 10 0.038
WAIS Similaritiesb 37 9.14 8.76 0 26 201 6.70 7.85 0 30 0.090
COWATb 37 4.19 4.05 0 17 198 3.91 3.54 0 15 0.666
Handtapsb 37 32.93 17.74 0 59 199 27.69 18.14 0 60.5 0.107
Behavior Dyscontrol Scaleb 37 9.89 6.06 0 19 195 7.95 6.60 0 19 0.100
Severe Impairment Batteryc 37 85.51 18.85 20 100 203 75.42 30.94 0 100 0.009
Independent Living Scaleb 37 23.51 11.78 0 39 194 20.53 12.32 0 40 0.175
Mini Nutritional Assessmentb 32 18.70 2.50 13.5 22 183 17.40 3.00 7 22.5 0.017
Physical Functioning
Grip strength (kg)c 37 18.21 12.65 0 60 206 8.91 9.47 0 52 0.001
Leg strength (kg)c 27 12.23 8.46 3.25 35 126 7.18 4.15 1.55 25.8 0.005
OARS BADLb 36 11.64 3.67 0 15 177 10.93 4.02 0 15 0.045
OARS IADLb 35 9.89 3.34 0 14 177 8.38 4.15 0 14 0.096
DAFS BADLb 36 18.56 6.75 0 23 192 16.09 8.32 0 23 0.015
DAFS IADLb 37 32.76 16.31 0 58 191 24.72 18.52 0 58 0.034
SPPBb 37 2.22 3.42 0 6 207 2.09 2.64 0 6 0.835
PPMEb 35 2.17 2.66 0 9 203 1.31 2.12 0 10 0.034
Health and Health Habits
Systolic blood pressureb 37 129.68 14.60 110 170 204 127.40 15.58 90 190 0.410
Diastolic blood pressureb 37 73.76 9.91 58 100 204 73.79 9.24 38 100 0.982
Pulse pressureb 37 55.92 12.44 34 80 204 53.60 15.76 24 110 0.398
Homocysteine (μmol/L)b 36 15.52 7.15 8 41.10 189 14.12 6.57 5.7 72.3 0.248
Vitamin B12 (pmol/L)b 36 359.73 350.20 73.70 1986.22 197 413.88 439.79 73.7 4830.3 0.485
Smokinga 37% 204%
Never smoked 37.83 77.94
Former smoker 56.75 19.61
Current smoker 5.40 2.45 0.001
Alcohola 37% 205%
Never used 43.24 65.37
Formerly used 29.73 19.02
Currently uses 27.02 15.61 0.030
BMI (kg/m2)c 36% 23.75 3.38 16.62 35.25 201% 22.41 4.79 13.11 51.87 0.046
Underweight 5.55 19.90
Optimal weight 66.67 55.72
Overweight 25.00 18.41
Obese 2.78 5.97 a0.123
Lifetime prevalence of reported
diseases
Depressiona 37 0.03 0.16 0 1 207 0.16 0.37 0 1 0.037
Cardiovascular diseasea 37 0.54 0.51 0 1 207 0.66 0.48 0 1 0.195
Psychiatrica 37 0.03 0.16 0 1 207 0.21 0.41 0 1 0.005
Cancera 37 0.05 0.23 0 1 207 0.05 0.21 0 1 1.000
Neurologicala 37 0.11 0.31 0 1 207 0.03 0.17 0 1 0.048
Kidney diseasea 37 0.11 0.31 0 1 207 0.03 0.18 0 1 0.067
Osteoporosisa 37 0.03 0.16 0 1 207 0.28 0.45 0 1 0.001
Diabetesa 37 0.08 0.28 0 1 207 0.09 0.28 0 1 1.000
Anxietya 37 0.03 0.16 0 1 207 0.06 0.24 0 1 0.701
Psychosisa 37 0.00 0.00 0 0 207 0.03 0.17 0 1 0.595
Hypertensiona 37 0.32 0.47 0 1 207 0.47 0.50 0 1 0.108
Strokea 37 0.03 0.16 0 1 207 0.00 0.07 0 1 0.281
Coronary artery diseasea 37 0.00 0.00 0 0 207 0.02 0.14 0 1 1.000
Congestive heart failurea 37 0.19 0.40 0 1 207 0.15 0.36 0 1 0.627
Peripheral artery diseasea 37 0.16 0.37 0 1 207 0.20 0.40 0 1 0.659
Cardiomegalya 37 0.00 0.00 0 0 207 0.00 0.07 0 1 1.000
Cardiac symptomsa 37 0.05 0.23 0 1 207 0.06 0.24 0 1 1.000
Open in a new tab
a

Fisher's Exact

b

t-test with equal variances

c

t-test with unequal variances

d

Kruskal-Wallis

Race

Results comparing whites and African Americans are presented in Table 3. Whites showed better cognitive functioning than African Americans on the MMSE, GDRS, FOME recall, recognition, and retention, WAIS similarities, COWAT, handtaps, BDS, SIB, ILS, and MNA. Whites also showed better physical performance in terms of grip strength, OARS BADLs, IADLs, DAFS BADLs and IADLs, SPPB, and PPME. With regard to health and health habits, whites had lower diastolic blood pressure than African Americans, African Americans were more likely to report being former or current smokers, and to be overweight or obese. Differences in lifetime disease categories were such that whites were more likely to report osteoporosis whereas African Americans were more likely to report diabetes, hypertension, and stroke.

Table 3.

Descriptive Statistics by Race

White African American
Cognitive Functioning N M SD Min Max N M SD Min Max p-value
MMSEb 192 17.4 8.38 0 30 52 11.77 9.01 0 30 0.001
GDRSd 188 3.78 1.64 1 7 52 5.02 1.49 2 7 0.001
FOME Delayed recallb 184 3.11 3.11 0 10 51 2.18 2.85 0 9 0.055
FOME Delayed
recognitionb 		184 3.26 2.44 0 9 51 2.12 2.35 0 8 0.003
FOME Retentionb 184 6.37 3.89 0 10 51 4.29 4.23 0 10 0.001
WAIS Similaritiesc 186 8.23 8.30 0 30 52 2.96 5.26 0 25 0.001
COWATb 183 4.32 3.66 0 17 52 2.67 3.15 0 10 0.004
Handtapsb 184 30.85 17.32 0 60.5 52 20.23 18.74 0 59 0.001
Behavior Dyscontrol
Scaleb 		181 9.38 6.39 0 19 51 4.29 5.47 0 17 0.001
Severe Impairment
Batteryd 		188 80.91 26.11 0 100 52 62.75 36.65 0 100 0.001
Independent Living
Scaleb 		182 22.55 11.68 0 40 49 15.27 12.77 0 36 0.001
Mini Nutritional
Assessmentb 		173 17.70 2.80 9.5 22.5 42 17.20 3.30 7 22 0.329
Physical Functioning
Grip strength (kg)b 191 11.09 10.80 0 60 52 7.50 9.05 0 40 0.029
Leg strength (kg)c 131 8.23 5.77 1.55 35 22 7.17 3.32 1.7 14.2 0.230
OARS BADLc 168 11.57 3.35 0 15 45 9.11 5.31 0 15 0.005
OARS IADLc 168 8.98 3.78 0 14 44 7.30 4.82 0 14 0.034
DAFS BADLc 179 17.50 7.37 0 23 49 12.76 9.65 0 23 0.002
DAFS IADLb 178 28.51 18.00 0 58 50 17.20 17.16 0 58 0.001
SPPBc 192 2.32 2.68 0 6 52 1.33 2.94 0 6 0.020
PPMEb 188 1.60 2.38 0 10 50 0.84 1.40 0 6 0.005
Health and Health
Habits
Systolic blood pressurec 190 126.82 14.54 90 180 51 131.22 18.09 90 190 0.110
Diastolic blood pressureb 190 72.95 8.99 38 100 51 76.92 9.97 60 100 0.001
Pulse Pressureb 190 53.87 15.42 25 110 51 54.29 14.97 24 100 0.860
Homocysteine (μmol/L)c 182 14.31 7.06 5.7 72.3 43 14.49 4.75 6.6 24.9 0.840
Vitamin B12 (pmol/L)c 187 401.93 458.83 73.7 4830.3 46 420.06 263.33 73.7 1288.28 0.720
Smokinga 192% 49%
Never smoked 74.48 61.22
Former smoker 23.96 30.61
Current smoker 1.56 8.16 0.025
Alcohola 191 % 51%
Never used 59.69 70.59
Formerly used 20.42 21.57
Currently uses 19.90 7.84 0.123
BMI (kg/m2)c 187% 22.16 3.97 13.11 34.96 50% 24.33 6.28 14.65 51.87 0.024
Underweight 18.72 14.00
Optimal weight 60.96 44.00
Overweight 17.11 28.00
Obese 3.21 14.00 a0.007
Lifetime prevalence of
reported diseases
Depressiona 192 0.15 0.36 0 1 52 0.10 0.30 0 1 0.373
Cardiovascular diseasea 192 0.61 0.49 0 1 52 0.75 0.44 0 1 0.073
Psychiatrica 192 0.18 0.39 0 1 52 0.17 0.38 0 1 1.000
Cancera 192 0.06 0.23 0 1 52 0.02 0.14 0 1 0.470
Neurologicala 192 0.04 0.19 0 1 52 0.06 0.24 0 1 0.448
Kidney diseasea 192 0.04 0.19 0 1 52 0.08 0.27 0 1 0.254
Osteoporosisa 192 0.28 0.45 0 1 52 0.08 0.27 0 1 0.002
Diabetesa 192 0.06 0.23 0 1 52 0.19 0.40 0 1 0.004
Anxietya 192 0.07 0.25 0 1 52 0.02 0.14 0 1 0.312
Psychosisa 192 0.02 0.12 0 1 52 0.06 0.24 0 1 0.113
Hypertensiona 192 0.41 0.49 0 1 52 0.62 0.49 0 1 0.008
Strokea 192 0.00 0.00 0 0 52 0.04 0.19 0 1 0.045
Coronary artery diseasea 192 0.02 0.12 0 1 52 0.02 0.14 0 1 1.000
Congestive heart failurea 192 0.18 0.38 0 1 52 0.10 0.30 0 1 0.202
Peripheral artery diseasea 192 0.18 0.39 0 1 52 0.25 0.44 0 1 0.325
Cardiomegalya 192 0.01 0.07 0 1 52 0.00 0.00 0 0 1.000
Cardiac symptomsa 192 0.07 0.25 0 1 52 0.04 0.19 0 1 0.744
Open in a new tab
a

Fisher's Exact

b

t-test with equal variances

c

t-test with unequal variances

d

Kruskal-Wallis

Residence

Results comparing individuals living in community and facility settings are presented in Table 4. Community residents showed better cognitive functioning than facility residents on all measures. Community residents also showed better physical performance in terms of grip strength, OARS BADLs and IADLs, DAFS BADLs and IADLs, the SPPB and PPME. With regard to health and health habits, community residents had higher systolic blood pressure and were more likely to report current alcohol use whereas facility residents were more likely to report former alcohol use. Differences in lifetime disease categories were such that facility residents were more likely to report depression, psychiatric illness, kidney disease, osteoporosis, and congestive heart failure.

Table 4.

Descriptive Statistics by Residential Status

Facility Resident Non-Facility Resident
Cognitive Functioning N M SD Min Max N M SD Min Max p-value
MMSEc 153 13.84 8.92 0 30 91 20.16 7.06 0 30 0.001
GDRSd 150 4.33 1.73 1 7 90 3.58 1.49 1 7 0.001
FOME Delayed recallb 145 2.14 2.78 0 10 90 4.14 3.13 0 10 0.001
FOME Delayed recognitionc 145 2.72 2.61 0 9 90 3.48 2.13 0 9 0.017
FOME Retentionc 145 4.86 4.15 0 10 90 7.62 3.25 0 10 0.001
WAIS Similaritiesb 148 5.20 7.22 0 30 90 10.17 8.37 0 29 0.001
COWATb 147 3.33 3.42 0 17 88 5.00 3.71 0 14 0.001
Handtapsc 89 36.03 14.81 0 59 147 23.96 18.50 0 60.5 0.001
Behavior Dyscontrol Scaleb 143 7.06 6.52 0 19 89 10.19 6.13 0 19 0.001
Severe Impairment Batteryc 149 69.63 32.67 0 100 91 89.01 18.31 0 100 0.001
Independent Living Scaleb 143 17.88 12.26 0 40 88 26.08 10.49 0 39 0.001
Mini Nutritional Assessmentb 137 16.90 2.70 7 22.5 78 18.70 3.00 11 21 0.001
Physical Functioning
Grip strength (kg)b 152 8.41 10.58 0 45 91 13.52 9.72 0 60 0.001
Leg strength (kg)b 72 7.45 4.96 1.55 35 81 8.62 5.89 1.65 25.8 0.189
OARS BADLc 86 12.00 3.31 0 15 127 10.40 4.24 0 15 0.002
OARS IADLc 88 9.43 3.53 0 14 124 8.06 4.32 0 14 0.012
DAFS BADLc 86 19.42 5.86 0 23 142 14.70 8.79 0 23 0.001
DAFS IADLb 86 34.10 17.01 0 58 142 21.13 17.49 0 58 0.001
SPPBc 153 1.29 2.89 0 6 91 3.49 1.86 0 6 0.001
PPMEb 147 0.73 1.60 0 10 91 2.57 2.60 0 9 0.001
Health and health habits
Systolic blood pressurec 151 125.99 12.85 100 180 90 130.70 18.69 90 190 0.030
Diastolic blood pressurcb 151 73.84 8.55 38 97 90 73.70 10.55 58 100 0.951
Pulse Pressurec 151 52.15 14.01 25 110 90 57.00 16.88 24 102 0.860
Homocysteine (μmol/L)c 140 14.10 5.25 5.7 41.1 85 14.74 8.53 6.4 72.3 0.530
Vitamin B12 (pmol/L)c 142 394.78 305.94 73.7 2587.31 91 422.25 568.16 73.7 4830.3 0.670
Smokinga 150% 91%
Never smoked 71.33 72.53
Former smoker 26.67 23.08
Current smoker 2.00 4.40 0.530
Alcohola 151% 91%
Never used 63.58 59.00
Formerly used 25.17 13.19
Currently uses 11.26 27.47 0.002
BMI (kg/m2)c 151% 22.22 4.82 13.11 51.87 86% 23.31 4.20 14.65 33.66 0.080
Underweight 19.87 13.95
Optimal weight 59.60 53.49
Overweight 15.89 25.58
Obese 4.64 6.98 a0.197
Lifetime prevalence of reported diseases
Depressiona 153 0.20 0.40 0 1 91 0.03 0.18 0 1 0.001
Cardiovascular diseasea 153 0.64 0.48 0 1 91 0.64 0.48 0 1 1.000
Psychiatrica 153 0.25 0.44 0 1 91 0.05 0.23 0 1 0.001
Cancera 153 0.05 0.22 0 1 91 0.04 0.21 0 1 1.000
Neurologicala 153 0.07 0.25 0 1 91 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.015
Kidney diseasea 153 0.07 0.25 0 1 91 0.01 0.10 0 1 0.057
Osteoporosisa 153 0.30 0.46 0 1 91 0.13 0.34 0 1 0.003
Diabetesa 153 0.10 0.31 0 1 91 0.05 0.23 0 1 0.240
Anxietya 153 0.07 0.26 0 1 91 0.03 0.18 0 1 0.263
Psychosisa 153 0.04 0.19 0 1 91 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.087
Hypertensiona 153 0.44 0.50 0 1 91 0.47 0.50 0 1 0.690
Strokea 153 0.01 0.11 0 1 91 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.530
Coronary artery diseasea 153 0.03 0.16 0 1 91 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.300
Congestive heart failurea 153 0.21 0.41 0 1 91 0.08 0.27 0 1 0.006
Peripheral artery diseasea 153 0.16 0.37 0 1 91 0.25 0.44 0 1 0.098
Cardiomegalya 153 0.00 0.00 0 0 91 0.01 0.10 0 1 0.373
Cardiac symptomsa 153 0.07 0.26 0 1 91 0.04 0.21 0 1 0.426
Open in a new tab
a

Fisher's Exact

b

t-test with equal variances

c

t-test with unequal variances

d

Kruskal-Wallis

Education

Results comparing individuals by educational attainment are presented in Table 5. Those with less than high school education had significantly poorer cognitive functioning than the other three educational categories on the MMSE, GRDS, FOME retention, SIB, Handtaps, COWAT, and ILS. Those with less than high school education had significantly poorer cognitive functioning than those with either some high school and those with more than high school education on FOME recall and the BDS. Those with less than high school education had significantly lower functioning on the WAIS similarities than the other three educational categories; Those with more than high school education also had significantly higher functioning on the WAIS similarities than those with some high school and those who completed high school. With regard to physical performance, those with less than high school education had significantly lower performance on grip strength, IADLs, and PPME than those with more than high school education. Individuals with less than high school education also had significantly lower scores on the DAFS than those with some high school, high school graduates, and those with more than high school education. There no differences in health and health habits as a function of educational attainment. In terms of disease categories, there was only one significant association such that individuals having either less than high school education or more than high school education were more likely to have diabetes (18% of those with less than high school education and 8% of those with more than high school)

Table 5.

Descriptive Statistics by Educational Attainment

0 to 8 9 to 11 12 13+
Cognitive Functioning N M SD Min Max N M SD Min Max N M SD Min Max N M SD Min Max p-value
MMSEb 84 12.19 8.99 0 28 31 18.55 7.58 0 29 59 17.53 7.76 0 30 63 20.38 7.12 0 30 0.001
GDRSc 82 4.80 1.61 1 7 31 3.55 1.50 1 7 58 3.83 1.59 1 7 62 3.29 1.48 1 6 0.001
FOME Delayed recallb 80 1.98 2.66 0 10 29 4.21 2.97 0 10 57 2.89 2.90 0 10 62 3.84 3.39 0 10 0.001
FOME Delayed recognitionb 80 2.58 2.71 0 9 29 3.10 2.11 0 7 57 3.53 2.40 0 8 62 3.39 2.18 0 9 0.098
FOME Retentionb 80 4.55 4.29 0 10 29 7.31 3.11 0 10 57 6.42 3.87 0 10 62 7.23 3.43 0 10 0.001
WAIS Similaritiesb 83 2.94 4.72 0 20 30 7.40 7.29 0 27 56 7.07 6.54 0 26 62 13.23 9.47 0 30 0.001
COWATb 82 2.20 2.80 0 10 30 4.83 3.20 0 14 54 4.56 3.14 0 12 62 5.74 4.07 0 17 0.001
Handtapsb 82 21.98 19.38 0 54.5 30 34.03 16.28 0 60.5 55 32.66 14.26 0 59 62 33.39 16.55 0 57.5 0.001
Behavior Dyscontrol Scaleb 79 5.72 5.86 0 19 30 10.74 6.07 0 19 54 8.27 6.26 0 19 62 11.04 6.37 0 19 0.001
Severe Impairment Batteryb 84 63.14 35.24 0 100 30 85.84 24.59 0 100 57 84.18 18.21 2 99 62 89.48 18.21 12.49 100 0.001
Independent Living Scaleb 80 15.08 12.22 0 39 30 24.30 11.95 0 40 54 23.31 9.32 0 36 61 26.72 10.56 0 40 0.001
Mini Nutritional Assessmentb 74 17.10 2.90 7 22 30 18.00 2.50 13 22 50 17.90 3.00 11 22.5 55 17.90 3.00 9.5 22 0.322
Physical Functioning
Grip strength (kg)b 84 8.88 10.61 0 52 31 9.77 7.32 0 27 58 9.80 9.07 0 34 63 14.10 12.35 0 60 0.021
Leg strength (kg)b 44 8.58 6.81 1.7 35 22 9.66 6.85 2.4 25.8 38 6.79 3.36 1.65 13.55 48 7.93 4.72 1.55 23.15 0.232
OARS BADLb 70 9.91 4.95 0 15 27 11.56 3.36 0 15 53 11.64 3.27 2 15 59 11.76 2.97 0 15 0.023
OADS IADLb 69 7.86 4.56 0 14 28 9.07 3.82 0 14 51 9.25 3.60 0 14 60 9.13 3.63 0 14 0.173
DAFS BADLb 78 14.06 9.19 0 23 29 19.66 6.91 0 23 53 17.30 6.88 0 23 61 18.85 5.91 0 23 0.001
DAFS IADLb 79 18.04 16.80 0 58 30 32.07 16.92 0 55 53 28.75 17.53 0 56 59 33.76 16.93 0 58 0.001
SPPBb 82 0.96 1.78 0 8 30 2.00 2.67 0 9 57 1.54 2.37 0 10 62 1.85 2.37 0 8 0.051
PPMEb 82 1.94 2.16 0 6 30 2.67 2.25 0 6 57 2.44 2.20 0 6 62 3.02 1.95 0 6 0.026
Health and Health Habits
Systolic blood pressureb 84 129.13 15.94 90 190 31 124.68 14.58 98 180 58 126.66 15.34 90 170 62 128.31 15.65 90 165 0.520
Diastolic blood pressureb 84 74.45 8.73 46 100 31 73.06 7.81 58 90 58 74.10 10.38 58 100 62 72.94 10.04 38 100 0.760
Pulse Pressureb 84 54.68 14.72 24 102 31 51.61 14.63 34 110 58 52.55 15.74 25 95 62 55.37 16.23 30 96 0.590
Homocysteine (μmol/L)b 77 14.04 5.34 5.7 41.1 28 14.55 6.91 6.5 40.8 55 14.56 5.20 7.5 34.3 59 14.32 9.02 6.4 72.3 0.970
Vitamin B12 (pmol/L)b 78 382.67 244.88 73.7 1288.28 29 326.82 196.72 73.7 995.54 58 487.01 729.27 73.7 4830.3 62 381.45 279.78 73.7 1986.22 0.320
Smokinga 82% 31% 59% 63%
Never smoked 63.41 77.42 81.36 74.60
Former smoker 30.49 19.35 16.95 25.40
Current smoker 6.10 3.23 1.69 0.00 0.141
Alcohola 83% 31% 59% 63%
Never used 66.27 51.61 66.10 53.97
Formerly used 22.89 25.81 16.95 20.63
Currently uses 10.84 22.58 16.95 25.40 0.227
BMI (kg/m2)b 81% 23.34 5.57 13.98 51.87 31% 22.66 3.93 15.55 33.66 57% 22.64 4.79 13.11 34.96 61% 21.84 3.34 15.23 30.5 0.308
Underweight 17.28 16.13 19.30 18.03
Optimal weight 46.91 61.29 52.63 70.49
Overweight 27.16 19.35 21.05 9.84
Obese 8.64 3.23 7.02 1.64 a0.163
Lifetime prevalence of reported diseases
Depressiona 84 0.15 0.36 0 1 31 0.03 0.18 0 1 59 0.19 0.39 0 1 63 0.11 0.32 0 1 0.180
Cardiovascular diseasea 84 0.65 0.48 0 1 31 0.71 0.46 0 1 59 0.61 0.49 0 1 63 0.63 0.49 0 1 0.823
Psychiatrica 84 0.24 0.43 0 1 31 0.06 0.25 0 1 59 0.19 0.39 0 1 63 0.13 0.34 0 1 0.114
Cancera 84 0.06 0.24 0 1 31 0.03 0.18 0 1 59 0.07 0.25 0 1 63 0.03 0.18 0 1 0.795
Neurologicala 84 0.06 0.24 0 1 31 0.03 0.18 0 1 59 0.02 0.13 0 1 63 0.02 0.13 0 1 0.520
Kidney diseasea 84 0.07 0.26 0 1 31 0.06 0.25 0 1 59 0.02 0.13 0 1 63 0.03 0.18 0 1 0.399
Osteoporosisa 84 0.25 0.44 0 1 31 0.19 0.40 0 1 59 0.22 0.42 0 1 63 0.29 0.46 0 1 0.768
Diabetesa 84 0.18 0.39 0 1 31 0.03 0.18 0 1 59 0.00 0.00 0 0 63 0.08 0.27 0 1 0.001
Anxietya 84 0.06 0.24 0 1 31 0.06 0.25 0 1 59 0.05 0.22 0 1 63 0.06 0.25 0 1 1.000
Psychosisa 84 0.05 0.21 0 1 31 0.00 0.00 0 0 59 0.00 0.00 0 0 63 0.02 0.13 0 1 0.305
Hypertensiona 84 0.46 0.50 0 1 31 0.48 0.51 0 1 59 0.47 0.50 0 1 63 0.43 0.50 0 1 0.948
Strokea 84 0.02 0.15 0 1 31 0.00 0.00 0 0 59 0.00 0.00 0 0 63 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.501
Coronary artery diseasea 84 0.04 0.19 0 1 31 0.03 0.18 0 1 59 0.00 0.00 0 0 63 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.203
Congestive heart failurea 84 0.19 0.40 0 1 31 0.19 0.40 0 1 59 0.19 0.39 0 1 63 0.08 0.27 0 1 0.203
Peripheral artery diseasea 84 0.20 0.40 0 1 31 0.26 0.44 0 1 59 0.15 0.36 0 1 63 0.19 0.40 0 1 0.671
Cardiomegalya 84 0.00 0.00 0 0 31 0.00 0.00 0 0 59 0.00 0.00 0 0 63 0.02 0.13 0 1 0.646
Cardiac symptomsa 84 0.06 0.24 0 1 31 0.13 0.34 0 1 59 0.07 0.25 0 1 63 0.03 0.18 0 1 0.349
Open in a new tab
a

Fisher's Exact

b

ANOVA

c

Kruskal-Wallis

Multifactorial ANOVA

Separate factorial ANOVAs were estimated for each of the cognitive function and physical performance measures, and the significance of each main effect is shown in Table 6. As can be seen, no gender differences remained significant for any of the cognitive measures. In terms of physical performance, gender differences remained significant for grip strength, leg extension strength, and DAFS IADL. Race differences were significant only for the GDRS in terms of cognitive measures and only or DAFS BADL for physical performance. Differences as a function of residential status were much more robust, remaining significant for cognitive functioning in terms of the MMSE, FOME recall, WAIS similarities, and the SIB. In terms of physical performance, residential status differences remained significant for the OARS IADL, DAFS BADL and IADL, SPPB, and PPME. Differences as a function of educational attainment were also quite robust for differences in cognitive functioning, remaining significant for the MMSE< GDRS, FOME recall and retention, WAIS similarities, COWAT, Handtapping, BDS, and SIB. In terms of physical performance, differences by educational attainment remained only for the DAFS IADL.

Table 6.

Summary of Significant Main Effects from the ANOVA Analysis

Variable Gender Race Residence Education
Cognitive Functioning
MMSE ** ***
GDRS * **
FOME Delayed recall * *
FOME Delayed recognition
FOME Retention *
WAIS Similarities * ***
COWAT ***
Handtaps *
Behavior Dyscontrol Scale *
Severe Impairment Battery * *
Physical Performance
Grip strength (kg) ***
Leg strength (kg) *
OARS BADL
OARS IADL **
DAFS BADL * *
DAFS IADL * ** **
SPPB ***
PPME ***
Open in a new tab

Note. Gender, race, residential status, and educational attainment were controlled for each other and the two-, three-, and four-way interactions.

*

p < .05;

**

p < .01;

***

p < .001.

Contribution of Disease Comorbidity in Cognitive and Functional Measures: R2 Values

Results from a series of multiple regression models in Table 7 provide the proportion of variance accounted for in cognitive functioning and physical performance measures first by each factor separately, all factors together, and all factors with the addition of comorbid disease variables (diabetes mellitus, stroke, coronary artery disease, hypertension, congestive heart failure, current smoker, depression, and obesity, all coded as yes/no). For each, the increment in R2 associated with the inclusion of health characteristics is also provided. Gender accounts for between .1% (COWAT) and 2.3% (FOME recognition) of the variance in cognitive measures and between .5% (OARS BADL) and 12.4% (leg extension strength) of the variance in physical performance measures. Race accounts for between 3.6% (COWAT) and 10.4% (BDS) of the variance in cognitive measures and between .5% (leg extension strength) and 6.5% (DAFS IADL) of the variance in physical performance measures. Residential status accounts for between 4.7% (GDRS) and 12.1% (MMSE) of the variance in cognitive measures and between 1.1% (leg extension strength) and 16.4% (PPME) of the variance in physical performance measures. Educational attainment accounts for between 2.8% (FOME recognition) and 25.1% (WAIS similarities) of the variance in cognitive measures and between 2.4% (OARS IADL) and 13.7% (DAFS IADL) of the variance in physical performance measures. Overall, these four factors account for between 7.8% (FOME recognition) and 32.8% (WAIS similarities) of the variance in cognitive measures and between 7.5% (OARS IADL) and 26.2% (DAFS IADL) of the variance in physical performance measures. Addition of the health variables increased variance accounted for only for FOME recall among the cognitive measures and only for leg extension strength, SPPB, and PPME among physical performance measures.

Table 7.

Proportion of Variance (R2) in the Cognitive Test Measures Accounted for by Gender, Race, Residential Status, and Educational Attainment, Separately and Together, and Improvement in Prediction with Addition of Health Variables and Depression

Variable Gender Race Residence Education G+R+R+E G+R+R+E+H ΔR2
Cognitive Functioning
MMSE 0.016* 0.069*** 0.121*** 0.152*** 0.268*** 0.306*** 0.038
GDRS 0.019* 0.092*** 0.047*** 0.143*** 0.216*** 0.259*** 0.043
FOME Delayed Recall 0.003 0.016 0.101*** 0.079*** 0.163*** 0.259*** 0.096**
FOME Delayed Recognition 0.023* 0.037** 0.022* 0.028 0.078** 0.113* 0.034
FOME Retention 0.018* 0.045*** 0.110*** 0.089*** 0.198*** 0.265*** 0.067
WAIS Similarities 0.012 0.074*** 0.090*** 0.251*** 0.328** 0.367** 0.039
COWAT 0.001 0.036** 0.050*** 0.166*** 0.194*** 0.253*** 0.059
Handtaps 0.011 0.059*** 0.104*** 0.093*** 0.202*** 0.263*** 0.061
Behavior Dyscontrol Scale 0.012 0.104*** 0.055*** 0.123*** 0.218*** 0.280*** 0.062
Severe Impairment Battery 0.015 0.064*** 0.101*** 0.162*** 0.252*** 0.272*** 0.020
Physical Performance
Grip strength (kg) 0.101*** 0.020* 0.055*** 0.041* 0.176*** 0.228*** 0.052
Leg strength (kg) 0.124*** 0.005 0.011 0.028 0.156*** 0.255*** 0.099*
OARS BADL 0.005 0.064*** 0.039** 0.045* 0.114*** 0.119* 0.004
OARS IADL 0.019* 0.029* 0.028* 0.024 0.075* 0.121* 0.046
DAFS BADL 0.012 0.058*** 0.079*** 0.081*** 0.174*** 0.215*** 0.041
DAFS IADL 0.026* 0.065*** 0.117*** 0.137*** 0.262*** 0.304*** 0.042
SPPB 0.019* 0.019* 0.161*** 0.034 0.205*** 0.268*** 0.062*
PPME 0.008 0.024* 0.164*** 0.040* 0.203*** 0.283*** 0.081**
Open in a new tab

Discussion

Our objective was to present normative data across dimensions of physical and cognitive performance as well as a range of disease classifications as a function of gender, race, residence, and educational attainment. Overall, our results point to clear and highly consistent differences as a function of these variables, suggesting that differences and disparities observed with younger samples (Au et al., 2004; Dore et al., 2007) are also observed into the second century of life.

Analysis of gender differences point toward better physical and cognitive functioning for male centenarians compared with female centenarians. Where gender differences exist in terms of diseases, the pattern is largely similar, with the exception that male centenarians are more likely to experience neurological disorders than female centenarians, and to report use of alcohol and tobacco, although data such as these may also be subject to considerable under-reporting (Graham, 1986).

With regard to race differences, the pattern is largely similar, with more consistent evidence that white centenarians experience better physical and cognitive functioning than do African Americans. This is true for the small number of diseases for which there are racial differences. Most notably, diabetes and hypertension are much more prevalent among African American than white centenarians (Mokdad et al., 2003). On the other hand, white centenarians are much more likely to have osteoporosis (Looker et al., 1997). Differences in blood pressure are limited to DBP. African Americans are more likely to report past or current smoking than whites (Husten et al., 1997 reported that smoking cessation rates were higher among whites than African Americans), and to be overweight or obese (Mokdad et al., 2003).

Community versus institutional living forms yet another consistent axis that differentiates physical and cognitive functioning and disease among centenarians. As would be expected community-living centenarians reported considerably better physical functioning than their institutional-living counterparts on nearly every measure and on every cognitive measure administered. Those living in facilities were more likely to have used alcohol in the past, whereas those in the community were more likely to report current alcohol use. Prevalence of disease was also much higher among centenarians living in institutions than in the community, although it is important to recognize that the institutional setting also provides great opportunities for recognition and diagnosis than community residence. There is also considerable potential for confounding effects in the association between disease categories and residential status. The same characteristic (e.g., lack of partner) may be a risk factor for both nursing home placement and depression.

Educational attainment provided the final dimension across which differences were considered. Here, the most consistent differences were found as a function of those with less than high school versus those with more than high school education, followed by those with less than high school education compared with those having at least some high school education. It is important to note, however, that for many domains, individuals who completed high school had lower performance than individuals with at least some high school, although it is not clear why this should be the case. One possibility is that individuals forced to leave high school prior to graduation had different opportunities and experiences than those who graduated but did not continue to college, making them effectively more similar to individuals with education beyond high school. Most studies employ years of formal education as controls, but do not include other proxies for education. It is extremely important to adjust for education and proxies for education when comparing ethnic/racial groups (Aiken-Morgan, Sims, & Whitfield, 2008). The work of Aiken-Morgan et al.(2008) makes it clear that years of formal education is far from a pure or reliable indicator of “true education level,” and that reading ability is a very important control in this respect. These investigators found that magnitude of differences in performance between African American samples and European American samples decreased with adjustment for reading ability, although they were not attenuated. These investigators urge the use of multiple proxy variables for education in studies involving comparisons between African American samples and cognitive performance. It is clear that a much more concerted effort is needed with respect to studies of African American cohorts and other ethnic groups. If this effort is made, cross-sectional designs will generate important hypotheses for further studies, especially the prospective and longitudinal studies that are needed.

Only a single difference was observed in terms of educational attainment and disease, such that prevalence of diabetes was highest among those with the lowest and highest levels of educational attainment. This differs somewhat from previous research with younger samples which has suggested only that low educational attainment is associated with higher risk of diabetes mellitus (Bachman et al., 2003; Steinvil et al., 2008). Although prevalence in the former groups was still more than twice as high as in the second group, this does suggest that clinicians may wish to pay attention to the possibility of diabetes mellitus among this highly educated group which may possess knowledge of appropriate health behaviors but also a surfeit of resources that may lead to diabetes, greater opportunity for business and social activities that involve consumption of enjoyable but non-nutritional and cholesterol lowering food and drink. With regard to diseases and health habits, it may not be sufficient to focus only on those individuals with the lowest levels of education but also on those with greater access to resources.

Multivariate analyses elaborate on these bivariate associations in two key ways. First, they suggest that many of the associations with gender and race can likely be attributable to differences in residential status and / or educational attainment. In multifactorial ANOVAs, all of the cognitive differences associated with gender vanish, leaving differences only in two measures of strength and direct assessment of IADLs. Similarly, race differences are limited to scores on the GDRS as the only cognitive domain and on direct assessment of BADLs for physical performance. Not surprisingly, the remaining differences are greatest for residential status in terms of physical performance and greatest for educational attainment for cognitive status. Second, adding health variables to our model, generally added little over and above the importance of these four dimensions. This is similar to the findings of an earlier paper on norms for cognitive measures using younger samples (Dore et al., 2007). Overall, our multivariate models generally account for roughly one quarter of the variance in cognitive and physical performance measures (median values .26 and .24, respectively, compared with a median value for cognitive measures of .16 in Dore et al., 2007), suggesting important systematic sources of variation within this sample of centenarians.

It is difficult to over-state the importance of population aging for society, or to fully capture the extent of changes which are occurring as a result of these demographic shifts. It is only recently that living until old age has become a normal and expected aspect of the life-cycle; and, recent demographic research suggests that these changes are likely to continue for the foreseeable future, with critical importance for cognitive functioning, physical performance, health and health behaviors and lifetime history of disease. Using Perls and colleagues' (Evert et al. 2004) classifications of New England Centenarian Study (NECS) centenarians as survivors (onset of chronic disease prior to age 80), delayers (onset of chronic disease after age 80) or escapers (absence of chronic disease), Arnold and colleagues (2010) have found that the modal category is survivor (43%) with only 17% of centenarians reaching this centenarian status as escapers. These proportions are similar to both the NECS study with 19% escapers data and a Danish study of the 1905 birth cohort with 19% escapers (Engberg et al., 2009). Olshansky et al. (2009) suggest that official government projections are even likely to underestimate the extent of population aging in the coming decades because they do not account for likely advances in biomedical technology that can delay the onset and progression of major fatal diseases or perhaps slow the aging process itself.

Similarly, existing assessment tools may not be adequate to capture the full range of cognitive functioning and physical performance in centenarians. Recently, Cress and colleagues (2010) have demonstrated how multiple physical performance indicators can be combined using item response theory methods in order to derive a continuously scaled measure of physical performance that has greater concurrent and predictive (of mortality) validity than existing scales developed for use with younger samples. Further, these methods appear useful with the younger samples as well, providing the possibility of cross-walking measures across samples of different ages or which differ in terms of underlying functioning. The broad range of cognitive measures available in the Georgia Centenarian Study suggests this may be a fruitful future area of inquiry. Similarly, it may be worthwhile to consider the possibility of developing ways to equate measures across the many disparate data sets which include centenarians in order to derive meaningful estimates across pooled samples, or to compare different cohorts of centenarians on cognitive and physical performance measures. Because this sample represents approximately .02% of the members of their birth cohort, it is important to bear in mind that this sample is already highly selected. Selection forces out of the population may diminish as larger proportion of future cohorts reach centenarian status, changing definitions of what is “normal” (i.e., primary aging) as well as what is “normative” (i.e., prevalent) in a sample for which a majority (57%) have scores on the Global Deterioration Rating Scale between 4 and 7, suggesting high rates of cognitive impairment. It might be argued that data for persons 98 years and beyond cannot be described as normal; consequently, we have only presented descriptive data not norms. We counter this argument with three observations. This notion comes from a psychometric tradition, e.g., the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale, suggesting that what is true for youth is the norm. Second, norms do not imply a standard that applies to most people. It cannot be argued that surviving into very old age is not normal, or we would not see this phenomenon. Given the large number of persons surviving into their second century of life, it is imperative that the neuropsychologists to be able to compare the cognitive ability and function with those of their patients and to do so relative to their own age cohort. First and foremost, our normative data are provided for the clinical neuropsychologist, neurologists, psychologists, and health professionals involved in cognitive and functional diagnostics with these exceptional individuals. Finally, we note several limitations in the present study. Although ideal, longitudinal data are difficult to collect with this age group, and fraught with selective attrition. Similarly, many measures appropriate for use with younger samples cannot be used with a large proportion of our sample due to ceiling and floor effects, or because they would have been too taxing in light of all of the other constructs evaluated in this study. Additionally, some variables were obtained, of necessity, by self-report. Centenarians may have limited availability of proxy reporters and self-report may be difficult to obtain due to sensory or cognitive impairments. Finally, we did not have access to measures of premorbid intelligence such as reading ability and so had to rely instead on educational attainment.

Acknowledgments

This research was funded by NIH grants P01AG017553, R01HL67358 and R01HL81290 from the National Institute on Aging and the National Heart Lung and Blood Institute. The GCS is a collaboration among The University of Georgia, Tulane University Health Sciences Center, Boston University, University of Kentucky, Emory University, Duke University, Wayne State University, Iowa State University, Temple University, and University of Michigan. Additional authors include S. M. Jazwinski, R. C. Green, M. Gearing, W. R. Markesbery, J. S. Tenover, W. L. Rodgers, C. Rott, and J. Arnold. Authors acknowledge the valuable recruitment and data acquisition effort from M. Burgess, K. Grier, E. Jackson, E. McCarthy, K. Shaw, L. Strong and S. Reynolds, data acquisition team manager; S. Anderson, E. Cassidy, M. Janke, and J. Savla, data management; M. Poon for project fiscal management.

References

  1. Aiken-Morgan AT, Sims RC, Whitfield KE. Cardiovascular health and education as sources of individual variability in cognitive aging among African Americans. Journal of Aging and Health. 2010;22:477–503. doi: 10.1177/0898264310361627. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Allen RH, Stabler SP, Savage DG, et al. Elevation of 2-methylcitric acid I and II levels in serum, urine, and cerebrospinal fluid of patients with cobalamin deficiency. Metabolism. 1993;42:978–988. doi: 10.1016/0026-0495(93)90010-l. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Arnold J, Dai J, Nahapetyan L, Arte A, Johnson MA, Hausman DB, Poon LW. Predicting successful aging in a population-based sample of Georgia centenarians. 2010 doi: 10.1155/2010/989315. Manuscript submitted for publication. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Au R, Seshadri S, Wolf PA, Elias MF, Elias PK, Sullivan L, Beiser A, D'Agostino RB. New norms for a new generation: Cognitive performance in the Framingham Offspring cohort. Experimental Aging Research. 2004;30:333–358. doi: 10.1080/03610730490484380. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Bachman MO, Eachus J, Hopper CD, Davey Smith G, Propper C, Pearson NJ, Williams S, Tallon D, Frankel S. Socio-economic inequalities in diabetes complications, control, attitudes and health service use: A cross-sectional study. Diabetic Medicine. 2003;20:921–929. doi: 10.1046/j.1464-5491.2003.01050.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Benton A, Hamsher K. Multilingual Aphasia Examination. University of Iowa; Iowa City: 1997. [Google Scholar]
  7. Christensen K, Doblhammer G, Rau R, Vaupel JW. Ageing populations: The challenges ahead. Lancet. 2009;374:1196–1208. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(09)61460-4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Cress ME, Gondo Y, Davey A, Anderson S, Kim S-H, Poon LW. Assessing physical performance in centenarians: Norms and an extended scale from the Georgia Centenarian Study. 2010 doi: 10.1155/2010/310610. Manuscript submitted for publication. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Dore GA, Elias MF, Robbins MA, Elias PK, Brennan SL. Cognitive performance and age: Norms from the Maine-Syracuse Study. Experimental Aging Research. 2007;33:205–271. doi: 10.1080/03610730701319087. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Engberg H, Oksuzyan A, Jeune B, Vaupel JW, Christensen K. Centenarians--a useful model for healthy aging? A 29-year follow-up of hospitalizations among 40,000 Danes born in 1905. Aging Cell. 2009;8:270–276. doi: 10.1111/j.1474-9726.2009.00474.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Evert J, Lawler E, Bogan H, Perls T. Morbidity profiles of centenarians: Survivors, delayers, and escapers. Journals of Gerontology: Medical Sciences. 2003;58:M232–M237. doi: 10.1093/gerona/58.3.m232. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Fillenbaum G. Multidimensional functional assessment of older adults. Erlbaum; Hillsdale, NJ: 1988. [Google Scholar]
  13. Folstein MF, Folstein SE, McHugh PR. “Mini-mental state”: A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. Journal of Psychiatric Research. 1975;12:189–198. doi: 10.1016/0022-3956(75)90026-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Fortinsky RH, Covinsky KE, Palmer RM, Landefeld CS. Effects of functional status changes before and during hospitalization on nursing home admission. Journals of Gerontology: Medical Sciences. 1999;54A:M521–M526. doi: 10.1093/gerona/54.10.m521. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Fried LP, Kronmal RA, Newman AB, Bild DE, Mittelmark MB, Polak JF, for the Cardiovascular Health Study Collaborative Research Group Risk factors for 5-year mortality in older adults. Journal of the American Medical Association. 1998;279:585–592. doi: 10.1001/jama.279.8.585. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Fuld PA. The Fuld Object-Memory Evaluation. Stoelting Instrument Company; Chicago: 1981. [Google Scholar]
  17. Gondo Y, Hirose N, Arai Y, Inagaki H, Masui Y, Yamamura K, Kitagawa K. Functional status of centenarians in Tokyo, Japan: Developing better phenotypes of exceptional longevity. Journal of Gerontology: Medical Sciences. 2006;61:305–310. doi: 10.1093/gerona/61.3.305. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Graham K. Identifying and measuring alcohol abuse among the elderly: Serious problems with existing instruments. Journal of Studies on Alcohol. 1986;47:322–326. doi: 10.15288/jsa.1986.47.322. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Grigsby J, Kaye K, Robbins LJ. Reliabilities, norms and factor structure of the Behavioral Dyscontrol Scale. Perceptual and Motor Skills. 1992;74:883–892. doi: 10.2466/pms.1992.74.3.883. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Guigoz Y, Vellas B, Garry PJ. Assessing the nutritional status of the elderly: the Mini-Nutritional Assessment as part of the geriatric evaluation. Nutrition Reviews. 1996;54:59–65. doi: 10.1111/j.1753-4887.1996.tb03793.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Guralnik JM, Simonsick EM, Ferrucci L, Glynn RJ, Berkman LF, Blazer DG, Wallace RB. A short physical performance battery assessing lower extremity function: association with self-reported disability and prediction of mortality and nursing home admission. Journal of Gerontology. 1994;49:M85–M94. doi: 10.1093/geronj/49.2.m85. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Holtsberg PA, Poon LW, Noble CA, Martin P. Mini-Mental State Exam status of community-dwelling cognitively intact centenarians. International Psychogeriatrics. 1995;7:417–427. doi: 10.1017/s104161029500216x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Inouye SK, Peduzzi PN, Robinson JT, Hughes JS, Horwitz RI, Concato J. Importance of functional measures in predicting mortality among older hospitalized patients. Journal of the American Medical Association. 1998;279:1187–1193. doi: 10.1001/jama.279.15.1187. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Johnson MA, Hausman DB, Davey A, Poon LW, Allen RH, Stabler SP. Vitamin B12 deficiency in African American and white octogenarians and centenarians in Georgia. Journal of Nutrition, Health, & Aging. 2010;14:339–345. doi: 10.1007/s12603-010-0077-y. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Krach P, DeVaney S, DeTurk C, Zink MH. Functional status of the oldest-old in a home setting. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 1996;24:456–464. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2648.1996.02124.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Loeb PA. Independent Living Scales manual. The Psychological Corporation; San Antonio, TX: 1992. [Google Scholar]
  27. Loewenstein DA, Amigo E, Duara R, Guterman A, Hurwitz D, Berkowitz N, Eisdorfer C. A new scale for the assessment of functional status in Alzheimer's disease and related disorders. Journal of Gerontology. 1989;44:P114–P121. doi: 10.1093/geronj/44.4.p114. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Morris JC. The Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR): Current version and scoring rules. Neurology. 1993;43:2412–2414. doi: 10.1212/wnl.43.11.2412-a. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Muller C, Fahs MC, Schechter M. Primary medical care for elderly patients. Part I: Service mix as seen by an expert panel. Journal of Community Health. 1989;14:79–87. doi: 10.1007/BF01321538. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. National Institutes of Health, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Clinical guidelines on the identification, evaluation, and treatment of overweight and obesity in adults. 1998 Online (accessed May 13, 2010): http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/guidelines/obesity/prctgd_c.pdf.
  31. Ogawa Y, Iwasaki K, Yasumura S. A longitudinal study on health status and factors relating to it in elderly residents of a community. Japanese Journal of Public Health. 1993;40:859–871. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Olshansky SJ, Goldman DP, Zheng Y, Rowe JW. Aging in America in the twenty-first century: Demographic forecasts from the MacArthur Foundation Research Network on an Aging Society. Millbank Quarterly. 2009;87:842–862. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0009.2009.00581.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Poon LW, Jazwinski SM, Green RC, Woodard JL, Martin P, Rodgers WL, Dai J. Methodological considerations in studying centenarians: Lessons learned from the Georgia Centenarian Studies. In: Poon LW, Perls TT, editors. Annual review of gerontology and geriatrics: Biopsychosocial approaches to longevity. Springer; New York: 2007. pp. 231–264. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Reisberg B, Ferris SH, de Leon MJ, Crook T. The Global Deterioration Scale for assessment of primary degenerative dementia. American Journal of Psychiatry. 1982;139:1136–1139. doi: 10.1176/ajp.139.9.1136. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Reitan RM, Wolfson D. The Halstead-Reitan Neuropsychological Test battery: Theory and clinical interpretation. Neuropsychology Press; Tucson, AZ: 1993. [Google Scholar]
  36. Rock BD, Goldstein M, Harris M, et al. Research changes a health care delivery system: A biopsychosocial approach to predicting resource utilization in hospital care of the frail elderly. Social Work in Health Care. 1996;22:21–37. doi: 10.1300/J010v22n03_02. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Sabatini P, Solovieff N, Puca A, Hartley SW, Perls TT. Genetic signatures of exceptional longevity in humans. Science. 2010 doi: 10.1126/science.1190532. 10,1126/science.1190532. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Saxton J, McGonigle-Gibson KL, Swihart AA, Miller VJ, Boller F. Assessment of the severely impaired patient: Description and validation of a new neuropsychological test battery. Psychological Assessment. 1990;2:298–303. [Google Scholar]
  39. Selim AJ, Fincke G, Berlowitz DR, Miller DR, Qian SX, Lee A, Kazis LE. Comprehensive health status assessment of centenarians: Results from the 1999 Large Health Survey of Veteran Enrollees. Journal of Gerontology: Medical Sciences. 2005;61:515–519. doi: 10.1093/gerona/60.4.515. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Silver MH, Jilinskaia E, Perls TT. Cognitive functional status of age-confirmed centenarians in a population-based study. Journal of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences. 2001;56:P134–P140. doi: 10.1093/geronb/56.3.p134. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Sonn U. Longitudinal studies of dependence in daily life activities among elderly persons. Scandinavian Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine. 1996;34(Suppl.):1–35. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Stabler SP, Marcell PD, Podell ER, Allen RH, Savage D, Lindenbaum J, et al. Elevation of total homocysteine in the serum of patients with cobalamin or folate deficiency detected by capillary gas chromatography-mass spectrometry. Journal of Clinical Investigation. 1998;81:466–474. doi: 10.1172/JCI113343. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Steinvil A, Shirom A, Melamed S, Toker S, Justo D, Saar N, Shapira I, Berliner S, Rogowski O. Relation of educational level to inflammation-sensitive biomarker level. American Journal of Cardiology. 2008;102:1034–1039. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2008.05.055. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Wechsler D. Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS-III) Third ed. The Psychological Corporation; San Antonio, TX: 1997. [Google Scholar]
  45. Winograd CH, Lemsky CM, Nevitt MC, et al. Development of a physical performance and mobility examination. Journal of American Geriatrics Society. 1994;42:743–749. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.1994.tb06535.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Worrall G, Chaulk P, Briffett E. Predicting outcomes of community-based continuing care. Four-year prospective study of functional assessment versus clinical judgment. Canadian Family Physician. 1996;42:2360–2367. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES