Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2015 Mar 9.
Published in final edited form as: J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 2003 Jan;58(1):S21–S29. doi: 10.1093/geronb/58.1.s21

Table 4.

Sensitivity Analysis: Religious Attendance Main Predictor Results for Several Plausible Dichotomizations of Pfeiffer’s Cognitive Dysfunction Scale

Cognitive Dysfunction Scale Cut Points 1982 Cross-Sectional Model
OR (95%CI)		 1982–1985 Longitudinal Model
OR (95%CI)		 1982–1988 Longitudinal Model
OR (95%CI)
0 vs. 1–10 errors .70 (.54–.92) .71 (.53–.94) .76 (.56–1.03)
0–1 vs. 2–10 errors .85 (.63–1.16) .64 (.49–.85) 1.00 (.71–1.41)
0–2 vs. 3–10 errors .82 (.59–1.13) .48 (.32–.73) 1.10 (.75–1.63)
0–3 vs. 4–10 errors .93 (.52–1.65) .50 (.34–.72) 1.29 (.82–2.02)

Notes: All models have the same main predictor variables and covariables as do the models in Table 3; only the cut point for the outcome variable changes for each reported model. OR = odds ratio; CI = confidence interval.