Skip to main content
PMC home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2016 Jul 1.
Published in final edited form as: Am J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2015 Jan 20;23(7):684–697. doi: 10.1016/j.jagp.2015.01.003

Sociodemographic Correlates of Cognition in the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA)

Annette L Fitzpatrick 1, Stephen R Rapp 2, Jose Luchsinger 3, Felicia Hill-Briggs 4, Alvaro Alonso 5, Rebecca Gottesman 6, Hochang Lee 7, Mercedes Carnethon 8, Kiang Liu 9, Kayleen Williams 10, A Richey Sharrett 11, Alexis Frazier-Wood 12, Constantine Lyketsos 13, Teresa Seeman 14
PMCID: PMC4465027  NIHMSID: NIHMS665890  PMID: 25704999

Abstract

Objectives

To describe the methodology utilized to evaluate cognitive function in the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA) and to present preliminary results by age, gender and race/ethnicity.

Design

Cross-sectional measurements of a prospective observational cohort.

Setting

Residents of 6 US communities free of cardiovascular disease at baseline (2000-02).

Participants

4,591 adults who completed the 5th MESA clinical examination in 2011-12, mean age 70.3 (SD 9.5) years, 53.1% women, and 40.7% Non-Hispanic White, 26.4% Non-Hispanic Black, 21.4% Hispanic, and 11.5% Chinese.

Measurements

The cognitive battery consisted of the Cognitive Abilities Screening Instrument (version 2) to evaluate global cognition, the Digit Symbol Code for processing speed and Digit Spans Forward and Backward to assess memory. Demographic, socioeconomic, and cultural covariates were also collected for descriptive statistics and multivariate modeling.

Results

Associations between socio-economic factors and cognition revealed that age, race/ethnicity, education, occupational status, household income, health insurance type, household size, place of birth, years and generation in U.S., and the presence of the APOE4 allele were significantly associated with performance on the cognitive tests although patterns varied by specific test, racial/ethnicity, and socio-cultural factors.

Conclusions

As many of the influencing cultural and socioeconomic factors measured here are complex, multifactorial, and may not be adequately quantified, caution has been recommended with regard to comparison and interpretation of racial/ethnic group performance differences from these cross-sectional models. These data provide a baseline for future exams and more comprehensive longitudinal analyses of the contributions of subclinical and clinical diseases to cognitive function and decline.

Keywords: MESA, cognition, methods, multi-ethnic, race, socioeconomic, cultural

As the population ages and racial diversity increases in the United States, there is a need to better understand trends in cognitive function and decline in older adults across ethnic groups comprising the U.S. population. Dramatic growth in the number of “oldest old”, adults age 85 years and above, across all racial and ethnic groups is contributing to an increase in the rate of dementias including Alzheimer's disease (1,2). The fastest sector of the growing minority elderly groups are Hispanic elders with a 328% increase and Asian and Pacific Islanders with 285% increase in comparison to 81% increase among Caucasians and 131% increase among African-Americans by 2030. Studies have been conducted that examine ethnic differences in the prevalence and incidence of dementia, most commonly among non-Hispanic Whites, non-Hispanic Blacks, and Hispanics, with varied results (3). Although there is no consensus, a growing body of evidence suggests that dementia may disproportionately affect racial/.ethnic minority groups in the US (4-8). The Alzheimer Association estimates that in non-Hispanic Blacks age 65 and older, the prevalence of AD and other dementias is approximately twice the rate of Whites; the rate in Hispanics is about 1.5 times greater than that of non-Hispanic Whites (6). The reasons for these apparent differences in racial/ethnicity and their implications are poorly understood at this time.

Cognitive function is multi-dimensional and is affected by a large number of biological and social factors. While objectively measured influences such as genetics and comorbid diseases are involved, social and cultural factors may also play a role that is more difficult to disentangle (3). The strong relationship between education and neuropsychological test performance has been well documented in a meta-analysis; however, risk of dementia associated with years of education appears to vary by population (9). The relationship between education and dementia occurred when years of education better reflected cognitive capacity. Assessment of different cognitive functioning along with social and cultural factors may help clarify the relationship between cognitive aging and race/ethnicity.

The Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA) provides a unique opportunity to examine how clinical markers and diseases, as well as social and cultural factors, are related to cognitive function and decline, and whether these patterns differ across racial and ethnic groups. The primary objective of this manuscript is to describe the methodology utilized to evaluate cognitive function in MESA at Exam 5 and to present descriptive results by age, gender and race/ethnicity. We also present preliminary associations of cognitive test scores by demographic variables in a sub-sample of participants to set the stage for more comprehensive analyses. These results will provide the background for subsequent manuscripts to address risk factors related to cognitive function and decline with aging, using the rich data available from five clinical examinations in four racial and ethnic samples in MESA.

METHODS

The MESA Cohort

The Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA) is a prospective observational cohort comprised of 6,814 adults age 45-84 years in 2000-2002 who self-reported their race/ethnicity as Non-Hispanic White, Non-Hispanic Black, Hispanic or Chinese (10). Adults between the ages of 45-84 years who were free of clinically apparent CVD were recruited from 6 US communities: Baltimore City and Baltimore County, Maryland; Chicago, Ill; Forsyth County, North Carolina; Los Angeles County, California; Northern Manhattan and the Bronx, New York; and St. Paul, Minn. Each field site recruited from locally available sources, which included lists of residents, lists of dwellings, and telephone exchanges. The primary objective of MESA is to determine the characteristics related to the prevalence and progression of subclinical CVD to clinical CVD focusing on age, gender and race/ethnicity differences in subclinical disease prevalence, risk of progression, and rates of clinical CVD (10).

Measurements

Data were collected using standardized questionnaires for assessing demographics including age, self-identified ethnicity, education, household income, health insurance, occupation, medical history and health behaviors. Cultural background questions included place of birth, years living in the US, and primary language spoken in the home. Participants were allowed to select the language to be used at the visit from English, Spanish or Chinese (Mandarin or Cantonese). Between baseline and 2011, four additional follow-up examinations were conducted to repeat measurements of the initial examination and to collect new clinical procedures. All participants provided informed consent and institutional review board approval was received at all MESA sites and reading centers.

Assessment of Cognition

Cognitive function was evaluated during the 5th MESA follow-up exam using three standardized and validated tests to address several cognitive domains: global cognitive function, processing speed, and memory. The neuropsychological tests utilized are described below:

Cognitive Abilities Screening Instrument (CASI, version 2)

The CASI was selected to measure global cognitive function because it was explicitly developed for cross-cultural use. It has been translated into Japanese, Chinese, Spanish, and French and has been utilized in these ethnic populations (11-13). The CASI includes 25 items which represent nine cognitive domains including attention, concentration, orientation, short-term memory; long-term memory, language, visual construction, verbal fluency and abstraction/judgment. Individual items were summed to provide an overall cognitive function score ranging from 0 to 100.

Digit Symbol Coding (DSC) is a subtest of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-III (17) that measures how quickly simple perceptual or mental operations can be performed, which along with working memory (see next test) mediate a large proportion of age related variance in memory (18,19), reasoning (18) and other cognitive abilities (20). A key at the top of the test page shows a series of nine simple symbols (e.g., +, >) that are paired with numbers (1-9). For 120 seconds the participant copies the correct symbol into an empty box directly below another box containing one of the numbers which are randomly ordered. The DSC score ranges from 0 to 133.

Digit Span (DS) is also a sub-test of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-III (17) that assesses working memory. This test is administered in two parts and requires the participant to repeat gradually increasing spans of numbers (e.g., 2-7-4) first forwards (14 trials maximum) and then backwards (14 trials maximum). For each given span length, two trials are administered and a point is awarded for each correctly recalled span. Scores range from 0 to 28.

General instructions for the cognitive exam were translated into Spanish and Mandarin Chinese and then independently back-translated by native speakers and pre-tested. A centralized training was held prior to the 5th MESA exam to standardize administration. Examiners were certified to administer the tests and conference calls were held throughout the data collection period to maintain high fidelity. Additional training was provided as needed.

Estimation of the ApoE4 Allele

ApoE isoforms were estimated from SNPs rs429358 and rs7412 from the genotyping conducted in MESA participants in 2013. The ApoE isoforms were estimated from these SNPs according to the following algorithm:

rs7412
rs429358 AA BA BB*
BB E4/E4 (Alz) E2/E4 (rare, ~1%) --
BA E3/E4 E2/E4 (rare, ~1%) --
AA E3/E3 (most common) E2/E3 --
Open in a new tab
*

must be E2/E2 if BB is on rs7412; also the BB at rs429358 and BB at rs7412 combination has not ever been observed.

A quality control comparison was conducted in a sample of 2,880 participants who were included in a MESA substudy which genotyped the ApoE alleles. A kappa of 0.965 resulted showing excellent agreement between the ApoE isoforms estimated from snps and the genotyped results.

Statistical Analyses

As the focus of this manuscript is to describe the distribution of cognitive scores across demographic characteristics, particularly those related to socio-economic status and cultural factors, analyses were restricted to the following self-reported covariates: Demographics including age, gender, race/ethnicity, clinic site; SES variables including education, income, employment, occupational; household size, health insurance, house ownership; and cultural variables: primary language, country of origin, time residing in the US, generation in the US, English spoken in the home, language of MESA exam. The addition of the ApoE4 allele was also included due to its known association with cognitive function. Descriptive statistics were calculated as the N and % or mean (SD) for categorical and continuous variables, respectively. Chi-square tests or analysis of variance (ANOVA) determined differences by race/ethnicity. Means and standard deviations of each cognitive test were analyzed and presented for all sociodemographic variables with corresponding tests of differences applied using ANOVA. General linear models were used to examine the associations between each of the cognitive tests and the sociodemographic characteristics of participants adjusted for age, gender, race/ethnicity, and education. Because of the high proportion of foreign-born non-US speakers restricted to Hispanic and Chines participants, interpretation of results by race/ethnicity is problematic. Thus, regression models were only performed in participants who selected to have the baseline exam completed in English assuring greater comparability. While raw scores were used as the outcome in models assessing the DSC and DS, the CASI was log-transformed in order to better approximate a normal distribution. Forward and backward DS scores were analyzed separately since they assess somewhat different aspects of memory. We present unstandardized beta coefficients, standard errors and p-values for each model. Effect size is shown as Cramer's V or unstandardized regression coefficients in the tables. Stata 12.0 was used to perform statistical analyses.

RESULTS

Exam 5 Sample Characteristics

During the 5th MESA examination, the CASI was completed by 4,591 participants across the six centers resulting in a completion rate of 96.8% of those returning for this follow-up visit. A total of 1,868 (40.7%) Non-Hispanic White, 1,212 (26.4%) Non-Hispanic Black, 984 (21.4%) Hispanic, and 527 (11.5%) Chinese participants completed the test. The DS was completed by 4,577 participants for a 98.3% completion rate, while 4,164 (89.5%) individuals completed the DSC. The mean age of participant who completed the cognitive evaluation was 70.3 years (SD 9.5) and 53.1% were female (Table 1). Significant differences were found across racial/ethnic groups for all socioeconomic characteristics. Whites achieved a higher level of education than the other groups with 54.9% completing college or attending graduate school compared to 43.0% of Chinese, 36.8% of Blacks, 11.1% of Hispanics (χ2(12)=958.8; p <0.001). Whites also had higher income than other racial/ethnic groups with 27.6% reporting household income greater than or equal to $100,000 compared to 13.4% Chinese, 9.8% Blacks, and 18.0% Hispanics (χ2(12)=740.7; p <0.001) . Only 2.8% of white participants did not have health care insurance coverage while 17.3% of Chinese, 6.6% of Blacks, and 13.6% of Hispanics had none (χ2(15)=372.7; p <0.001). A large difference in immigration status of MESA participants was apparent with only 7.2% of Whites but almost all Chinese (95.6%) born outside of the US; about two-thirds of Hispanics (65.7%) and 10.3% of Blacks immigrated to the US (χ2(12)=3200.0; p <0.001). Almost all Whites and Blacks spoke English as the primary language in their homes (> 99%) compared to 44.8% of Chinese and 71% of Hispanics (χ2(3)=1500.0; p <0.001). A difference in carriers of the ApoE4 allele was also found with Blacks having the highest prevalence (34.5%) compared to 24.0% in Whites, 17.2% in Chinese and 20.5% in Hispanics (χ2(12)=330.1; p <0.001).

Table 1.

Characteristics of MESA participants completing cognitive testing in 2011-12.

Race/Ethnicity
Non-
Hispanic
White		 Chinese Non-
Hispanic
Black		 Hispanic Total Test
Statistic*
(p)		 Effect Size**
(Sig.)
N 1,868 527 1,212 984 4,591
N (%) or
Mean (SD)		 N (%) or
Mean (SD)		 N (%) or
Mean (SD)		 N (%) or
Mean (SD)		 N (%) or
Mean (SD)
Age (years) 70.6 (9.5) 69.9 (9.5) 70.3 (9.3) 69.7 (9.7) 70.3 (9.5) F(3, 4587)= 2.3 (0.08)
Age Group (years)
    55-64 609 (32.6) 181 (34.3) 39 (32.4) 348 (35.4) 1531 (33.3) X2(9)= 6.9 (0.65) φc=0.022 (0.65)
    65-74 566 (30.3) 163 (30.9) 383 (31.6) 302 (30.7) 1,414 (30.8)
    75-84 536 (28.7) 142 (26.9) 345 (28.5) 248 (25.2) 1,271 (27.7)
    85-94 157 (8.4) 41 (7.8) 91 (7.5) 86 (8.7) 375 (8.2)
Gender
    Female 968 (51.8) 262 (49.7) 689 (56.8) 521 (52.9) 2,440 (53.1) X2(3)= 10.5 (0.02) φc=0.048 (0.02)
    Male 900 (48.2) 265 (50.3) 523 (43.2) 463 (47.1) 2,151 (46.9)
Education
    LT High School 63 (3.4) 104 (19.7) 111 (9.2) 372 (37.8) 650 (14.2) X2(12)= 958.8 (<0.001) φc=0.264 (<0.001)
    HS Graduate 284 (15.2) 82 (15.6) 217 (18.0) 214 (21.7) 797 (17.4)
    Some College 494 (26.5) 114 (21.6) 435 (36.0) 289 (29.4) 1,332 (29.1)
    College Graduate 446 (23.9) 123 (23.3) 223 (18.5) 60 (6.1) 852 (18.6)
    Post Graduate 579 (31.0) 104 (19.7) 221 (18.3) 49 (5.0) 953 (20.8)
Household Income ($)
    LT $20,000 153 (8.3) 179 (43.2) 185 (16.4) 314 (32.3) 831 (18.6) X2(12)= 740.7 (<0.001) φc=0.48 (<0.001)
    $20,000-34,999 239 (13.0) 103 9(19.7) 258 (22.8) 289 (29.7) 889 (19.9)
    $35,000-49,999 310 (16.9) 57 (10.9) 210 (18.6) 166 (17.1) 743 (16.7)
    $50,000-$99,999 626 (34.1) 115 (22.0) 366 (32.4) 175 (18.0) 1,282 (27.7)
    GE $100,000 507 (27.6) 70 (13.4) 111 (9.8) 175 (18.0) 716 (16.1)
Health Insurance
    Private 1,142 (61.4) 260 (49.3) 712 (59.1) 519 (53) 2,633 (57.6) X2(15)= 372.7 (<0.001) φc=0.166 (<0.001)
    Medicaid 1 (0.1) 13 (2.5) 8 (0.7) 33 (3.4) 55 (1.2)
    Medicare + Suppl 404 (21.7) 39 (7.4) 223 (18.5) 95 (9.7) 761 (16.6)
    Medicare no Suppl 210 (11.2) 107 (20.3) 140 (11.6) 162 (16.5) 619 (13.5)
    VA/Other 52 (2.8) 17 (3.2) 41 (3.4) 38 (3.9) 148 (3.2)
    None 52 (2.8) 91 (17.3) 80 (6.6) 134 (13.6) 357 (7.8)
Number in Household
    One 517 (27.8) 64 (12.1) 432 (36.1) 264 26.9) 1,277 (28.1) X2(9)= 260.0 (<0.001) φc=0.138 (<0.001)
    Two 960 (51.7) 235 (44.6) 468 (39.1) 349 (35.5) 2,012 (44.1)
    Three-Four 317 (17.1) 171 (32.4) 236 (19.7) 263 (26.8) 987 (21.6)
    Five or more 64 (3.4) 57 (10.8) 61 (5.1) 107 (10.9) 289 (6.3)
Place of Birth
    US - West 82 (4.4) 9 (1.7) 33 (2.7) 105 (10.7 229 (5.0) X2(12)= 3200.0 (<0.001) φc=0.485 (<0.001)
    US - Midwest 794 (42.5) 13 (2.5) 137 (11.3) 146 (14.8) 1090 (23.7)
    US - South 537 (28.7) 0 (0.0) 798 (65.8 54 (5.5) 1389 (30.3)
    US - Northeast 320 (17.1) 1 (0.2) 119 (9.8) 33 (3.4) 473 (10.3)
    Foreign-born 135 (7.2) 504 (95.6) 125 (10.3) 646 (65.7) 1410 (30.7)
Years in the US
    US born 1764 (94.4) 60 (11.4) 1123 (92.7) 415 (42.2) 3362 (73.2) X2(9)= 2500.0 (<0.001) φc=0.430 (<0.001)
    LT 15 years 14 (0.7) 161 (30.6) 8 (0.7) 80 (8.1) 263 (5.7)
    15-20 years 17 (0.9) 193 (36.6) 42 (3.5) 170 (17.3) 422 (9.2)
    30 years or more 73 (3.9) 113 (21.4) 39 (3.2) 319 (32.4) 544 (11.8)
English Spoken at Home 1853 (99.2) 236 (44.8) 1208 (99.7) 699 (71.0) 3996 (87.0) X2(3)= 1500.0 (<0.001) φc=0.567 (<0.001)
Language at MESA exam 1868 (100.0) 110 (20.9) 1211 (99.9) 498 (50.6) 3687 (80.3) X2(6)= 5476.0 (<0.001) φc=0.772 (<0.001)
    English 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 486 (49.4) 486 (10.6)
    Spanish 0 (0.0) 417 (79.1) 1 (0.1) 0 (0.0) 418 (9.1)
    Mandarin/Cantonese
Generation in US
    First 130 (7.1) 504 (95.6) 116 (10.1) 645 (66.0) 1395 (31.2) X2(9)= 3458.0 (<0.001) φc=0.507 (<0.001)
    Second 306 (16.8) 21 (4.0) 23 (2.0) 211 (21.6) 561 (12.6)
    Third 618 (34.0) 2 (0.4) 47 (4.1) 95 (9.7) 762 (17.1)
    Fourth or more 765 (42.1) 0 (0.0) 957 (83.7) 26 (2.7) 1748 (39.1)
Occupation
    Homemaker 187 (10.3) 69 (13.1) 64 (5.3) 119 (121) 439 (9.6) X2(15)= 185.8 (<0.001) φc=0.116 (<0.001)
    Working FT 856 (45.9) 235 (44.6) 547 (45.4) 423 (43) 2061 (45.0)
    Working PT 223 (12.0) 61 (11.6) 74 (6.1) 88 (8.9) 446 (9.7)
    Unemployed/on leave 42 (2.3) 13 (2.5) 48 (4.0) 46 (4.7) 149 (3.3)
    Retired-not working 287 (15.4) 126 23.2) 287 (23.8) 237 (24.1) 937 (20.4)
    Retired-working/volunteering 270 (14.5) 23 (4.4) 186 (15.4) 71 (7.2) 550 (12.0)
ApoE allele
    ApeE 3/3 1158 (62.0) 369 (73.8) 565 (46.6) 692 (70.0) 2804 (61.1) X2(12)= 330.1 (<0.001) φc=0.241 (<0.001)
    ApoE 2/3 187 (10.0) 21 (4.0) 85 (7.0) 53 (5.4) 346 (7.5)
    ApoE 4/4 40 (2.1) 4 (0.8) 46 (3.8) 13 (0.3) 103 (2.2)
    ApoE 2/4*** or 3/4 417 (22.3) 92 (17.5) 330 (27.2) 193 (19.6) 1032 (22.5)
    Missing 66 (3.5) 21 (4.0) 186 (15.3) 33 (3.4) 306 (6.7)
Open in a new tab
*

Chi-square test (degrees of freedom) or F-test (degrees freedom model) are presented.

**

Cramer's V and level of significance are shown.

***

only 3 participants had ApoE 2/4 genotype

Cognitive Test Scores, Demographic and Socioeconomic Characteristics

Mean scores for the three cognitive tests are shown in Table 2 by selected covariates. In general, cognition scores differed across socioeconomic and cultural variables as would be expected with higher scores found in those with greater education and income and lower scores in those less familiar with the English language and who have spent less time in the US. Carriers of the ApoE4 allele only performed slightly worse on the tests than did those without this allele; E4/4 allele carriers scored an average of 85.7 (SD 10.7) on the CASI compared to 87.0 (SD 11.4) by E3/3 carriers (F(3, 4586)=3.6; p=0.03). Scores on the DSC, Digit Span Forward and Digit Span Backward were 14.4 (3.9) vs. 15.4 (4.6) (F(4, 4154)=2.7; p=0.03), 9.2 (2.4) vs 9.7 (2.9) (F(4, 4565)=2.7; p=0.03 , and 5.2 (2.2) vs. 5.6 (2.4) (F(4, 4565)=2.1; p=0.08) for E4/4 and E3/3 carriers, respectively.

Table 2.

Mean cognitive scores by demographics and socioeconomic characteristics of the MESA cohort: CASI, DSC and Digit Spans Forward and Backward.

CASI DSC DIGIT SPAN
Forward Backward
N Mean (SD) B (SE) Test
Statistic*
(p)		 N Mean (SD) B (SE) Test
Statistic*
(p)		 N Mean
(SD)		 B (SE) Test
Statistic*
(p)		 Mean
(SD)		 B (SE) Test
Statistic*
(p)
Age Group (years)
    55-64 1531 89.1 (11.1) (reference) F= 75.7 df=3,4587 (<0.001) 404 59.2 (17.4) (reference) F=315.8 df=3,4155 (<0.001) 1528 10.0 (2.8) (reference) F = 27.8 df=3,4566 (<0.001) 6.0 (2.5) (reference) F = 39.0 df=3,4566 (<0.001)
    65-74 1414 87.9 (10.4) −1.17 (0.41) 1293 51.2 (16.6) −7.98 (0.64) 1410 9.7 (2.8) −0.33 (0.10) 5.7 (2.4) −0.34 (0.08)
    75-84 1271 84.8 (11.6) −4.34 (0.42) 1136 42.7 (16.4) −16.52 (0.67) 1267 9.4 (2.7) −0.67 (0.10) 5.2 (2.2) −0.76 (0.08)
    85-94 375 81.0 (12.4) −8.15 (.64) 331 33.9 (16.3) −25.34 (1.02) 372 8.7 (2.7) −1.29 (0.16) 4.8 (2.1) −1.19 (0.13)
Gender
    Female 2440 86.5 (11.7) (reference) F= 4.56 df=1,4589 (0.03) 2223 51.1 (19.2) (reference) F= 9.8 df=1,4157 (0.001) 2433 9.5 (2.8) (reference) F= 12.7 df=1,4568 (0.004) 5.6 (2.4) (reference) F= 0.08 df=1,4568 (0.77)
    Male 2151 87.2 (11.0) 0.72 (0.34) 1941 49.2 (19.0) −1.81 (0.57) 2144 9.8 (2.8) 0.29 (0.08) 5.6 (2.4) 0.02(0.07)
    Race/Ethnicity
    Non-Hispanic White 1868 90.8 (9.1) (reference) F=156.2 df=3,4587 (<0.001) 1668 56.6 (16.3) (reference) F= 203.9 df=3,4155 (<0.001) 1861 10.0 (2.4) (reference) F= 356.2 df=3, 4566 (<0.001) 6.4 (2.3) (reference) F=240.7 df=3,4566 (<0.001)
    Chinese 527 84.5 (12.1) −6.33 (0.53) 499 56.2 (18.6) −0.40 (0.88) 524 12.1 (3.3) 2.04 (0.12) 6.1 (2.4) −0.41 (0.10)
    Non-Hispanic Black 1212 85.4 (11.3) −5.39 (0.40) 1052 45.2 (16.8) −11.36 (0.68) 1211 9.5 (2.4) −0.52 (0.09) 5.1 (2.1) −1.34 (0.08)
    Hispanic 984 82.3 (12.5) −8.51 (0.42) 945 41.4 (19.2) −15.18 (0.70) 981 7.8 (2.4) −2.23 (0.09) 4.3 (2.0) −2.20 (0.08)
Education
    LT High School 650 77.0 (13.6) (reference) F=210.3 df =4,4579 (<0.001) 592 31.0 (15.8) (reference) F= 314.7 df=4,4149 (<0.001) 648 8.2 (3.1) (reference) F= 90.8 df=4,4558 (<0.001) 3.8 (1.9) (reference) F=193.6 df=4,4558 (<0.001)
    HS Graduate 797 85.0 (10.7) 7.98 (0.55) 733 45.7 (16.6) 14.72 (0.90) 793 9.2 (2.7) 1.22 (0.14) 5.1 (2.0) 1.31(0.11)
    Some College 1332 87.9 (10.2) 10.88 (0.50) 1198 51.9 (16.6) 20.85 (0.82) 1328 9.7 (2.6) 1.69 (0.12) 5.6 (2.2) 1.87(0.10)
    College Graduate 852 89.8 (9.3) 12.78 (0.55) 778 56.8 (16.3) 25.77 (0.89) 848 10.3 (2.7) 2.30 (0.14) 6.3 (2.3) 2.49(0.11)
    Post Graduate 953 91.2 (9.1) 14.16 (0.53) 858 59.0 (16.1) 27.98 (0.87) 953 10.3 (2.5) 2.27 (0.14) 6.6 (2.4) 2.86(0.11)
Household Income
    LT $20,000 831 81.0 (13.4) (reference) F=124.1 df =4,4456 (<0.001) 762 38.9 (18.7) (reference) F= 192.5 df= 4,4046 (<0.001) 826 9.2 (3.4) (reference) F= 29.2 df=4,4436 (<0.001) 4.6 (2.2) (reference) 108.7 df=4,4436 (<0.001)
    $20,000-34,999 889 84.9 (11.8) 3.97 (0.52) 820 46.2 (18.2) 7.16 (0.85) 890 9.2 (2.9) −0.001(0.13) 5.1 (2.2) .53 (0.11)
    $35,000-49,999 743 87.7 (10.0) 6.72 (0.54) 663 50.0 (16.5) 11.06 (0.90) 740 9.6 (2.5) 0.45 (0.14) 5.5 (2.3) .90 (0.11)
    $50,000-$99,999 1282 89.3 (10.4) 8.33 (0.48) 1167 55.4 (16.2) 16.49 (0.79) 1278 10.0 (2.6) 0.80 (0.12) 6.1 (2.4) 1.47 (0.10)
    GE $100,000 716 91.8 (6.9) 10.88 (0.55) 644 61.4 (15.2) 22.47 (0.91) 714 10.4 (2.5) 1.19 (0.14) 6.8 (2.4) 2.15 (0.11)
Health Insurance
    Private 2633 88.8 (10.6) (reference) F=60.2 df=5,4567 (<0.001) 2400 55.6 (17.8) (reference) F= 131 df=5, 4139 (<0.001) 2625 9.9 (2.7) (reference) F =12.0 df=5,4546 (<0.001) 6.0 (2.4) (reference) F= 35.4 df=5,4546 (<0.001)
    Medicaid 55 77.9 (14.6) −10.9 (1.50) 52 37.0 (20.4) −18.61 (2.42) 55 8.8 (3.2) −1.05 (0.38) 4.0 (2.0) −1.96 (0.32)
    Medicare + Suppl 761 86.4 (9.5) −2.37 (0.45) 678 44.2 (15.8) −11.52 (0.75) 757 9.3 (2.5) −0.56 (0.11) 5.4 (2.1) −.52 (0.09)
    Medicare no Suppl 619 81.1 (14.0) −7.69 (0.49) 552 37.5 16.9) −18.08 (0.81) 617 9.1 (3.0) −0.77 (0.12) 4.9 (2.2) −1.08 (0.10)
    VA/Other 148 87.9 (7.7) −0.89 (0.93) 138 48.0 (17.6) −7.65 (1.51) 148 9.7 (2.7) −0.18 (0.23) 5.3 (2.3) −0.61 (0.19)
    None 357 84.7 (12.1) −4.04 (0.62) 330 47.4 (17.3) −8.23 (1.01) 357 9.4 (3.5) −0.47 (0.15) 5.0 (2.3) −0.98 (0.13)
Number in Household
    One 1277 85.6 (12.2) (reference) F= 9.9 df=3,4561 (<0.001) 1143 46.2 (19.0) (reference) F= 30.5 df=3,4136 (<0.001) 1274 9.4 (2.7) (reference) F= 8.4 df=3,4540 (<0.001) 5.4 (2.4) (reference) F= 7.83 df=3,4540 (<0.001)
    Two 2012 87.6 (10.4) 2.00(0.41) 1840 50.9 (17.3) 4.60 (0.69) 2004 9.7 (2.7) 0.33 (0.10) 5.6 (2.3) 0.22 (0.08)
    Three-Four 987 87.3 (11.7) 1.69(0.48) 893 54.0 (18.8) 7.67 (0.82) 984 9.9 (3.0) 0.56 (0.11) 5.8 (2.5) 0.38 (0.10)
    Five or more 289 85.6 (12.8) −.09(0.73) 269 50.6 (21.6) 4.33 (1.24) 289 9.5 (3.2) 0.10 (0.18) 5.2 (2.5) −0.22 (0.15)
Place of Birth
    US - West 229 87.5 (13.8) (reference) F=74.6 df=4,4586 (<0.001) 220 57.6 (17.6) (reference) F= 81.1 df=4, 4154 (<0.001) 228 9.4 (2.6) (reference) F = 4.6 df=4,4565 (0.001) 5.6 (2.4) (reference) F= 44.9 df=4,4565 (<0.001)
    US - Midwest 1090 90.2 (9.2) 2.68 (0.80) 1013 56.4 (16.3) −1.18 (1.33) 1084 9.7 (2.4) 0.30 (0.20) 6.1 (2.3) 0.51 (0.17)
    US - South 1389 87.0 (11.3) −0.56 (0.78) 1168 47.6 (17.3) −9.97 (1.31) 1383 9.6 (2.4) 0.12 (0.19) 5.5 (2.2) −0.11 (0.16)
    US - Northeast 473 89.8 (9.8) 2.25 (0.88) 429 55.2 (15.6) −2.39 (1.48) 472 10.1 (2.5) 0.65 (0.22) 6.4 (2.5) 0.81 (0.18)
    Foreign-born 1410 83.1 (11.9) −4.42 (0.78) 1329 45.0 (20.2) −12.51 (1.30) 1403 9.5 (3.5) 0.09 (0.19) 5.1 (2.4) −0.50 (0.16)
Years in the US
    US born 3362 88.2 (10.9) (reference) F=57.2 df=3,4587 (<0.001) 2999 52.1 (17.7) (reference) F= 51.0 df=3,4155 (<0.001) 3354 9.6 (2.5) (reference) F=48.7 df=3,4566 (<0.001) 5.8 (2.3) (reference) F= 29.3 df=3,4566 (<0.001)
    LT 15 years 263 82.9 (12.0) −5.32 (0.71) 247 49.2 (19.8) −2.91 (1.21) 263 11.0 (3.8) 1.32 (0.17) 5.4 (2.6) −0.37(0.15)
    15-20 years 422 83.7 (12.8) −4.45 (0.57) 405 47.8 (20.9) −4.38 (0.96) 419 10.1 (3.7) 0.44 (0.14) 5.3 (2.5) −0.51 (0.12)
    30 years or more 544 83.2 (10.9) −4.96 (0.51) 513 41.6 (18.7) −10.47 (0.87) 541 8.6 (2.9) −1.02(0.12) 4.8 (2.3) −0.95 (0.10)
English Spoken at Home
    No 595 81.8 (12.1) (reference) F=140.0 df=1,4589 (<0.001) 563 41.6 (21.1) (reference) F=145.6 df=1,4157 (<0.001) 592 9.8 (3.8) (reference) F= 1.6 df=1,4568 (0.21) 4.8 (2.4) (reference) F= 71.3 df=1,4568 (<0.001)
    Yes 3996 87.6 (11.1) 5.83 (0.49) 3601 51.6 (17.8) 10.02 (0.83) 3985 9.6 (2.6) −0.15 (0.12) 5.7 (2.4) 0.88 (0.10)
Language at MESA exam
    English 3687 88.2 (10.6) (reference) F=158.2 df=2,4588 (<0.001) 3305 52.4 (17.4) (reference) F=305.5 df=2,4256 (<0.001) 3677 9.6 (2.4) (reference) F=617.7 df=2,4567 (<0.001) 5.8 (2.3) (reference) F= 187.9 df=2,4567 (<0.001)
    Spanish 486 79.4 (12.3) −8.87 (0.53) 464 31.4 (16.2) −21.03 (0.86) 485 7.0 (2.3) −2.61(0.11) 3.7 (1.8) −2.08 (0.11)
    Mandarin/Cantonese 418 83.7 (12.8) −4.51 (0.56) 395 53.7 (18.3) 1.17 (0.92) 415 12.8 (3.0) 3.21 (0.12) 6.1 (2.5) 0.29 (0.11)
Generation in US
    First 1395 83.1 (11.9) (reference) F=58.3 df=3,4462 (0.001) 1319 45.1 (20.3) (reference) F= 72.3 df=3,4058 (<0.001) 1389 9.5 (3.5) (reference) F= 5.8 df=3,4441 (0.001) 5.1 (2.4) (reference) F= 37.6 df=3,4441 (<0.001)
    Second 561 88.0 (8.6) 4.95 (0.55) 516 52.2 (17.3) 7.22 (0.94) 562 9.5 (2.5) 0.01 (0.13) 5.9 (2.4) 0.80 (0.11)
    Third 762 90.2 (10.9) 7.07 (0.49) 686 57.2 (16.3) 12.20 (0.85) 758 10.1 (2.4) 0.55 (0.12) 6.3 (2.4) 1.25 (0.10)
    Fourth or more 1748 88.0 (11.2) 4.96 (0.39) 1546 50.8 (17.4) 5.77 (0.68) 1743 9.6 (2.4) 0.05 (0.10) 5.6 (2.3) 0.52 (0.08)
Occupation
    Homemaker 439 85.0 (12.9) (reference) F= 38.5 df=5,4576 (<0.001) 397 47.0 (18.6) (reference) F=120.8 df=5,4146 (<0.001) 441 9.2 (2.9) (reference) F= 5.9 df=5,4555 (<0.001) 5.2 (2.4) (reference) F= 29.3 df=5,4555 (<0.001)
    Working FT 2061 88.8 (10.6) 3.74 (0.58) 1884 56.3 (17.0) 9.30 (0.96) 2054 10.0 (2.8) 0.79 (0.14) 5.9 (2.4) 0.71 (0.12)
    Working PT 446 88.2 (11.4) 3.17 (0.75) 403 53.2 (19.5) 6.15 (1.23) 445 9.8 (2.9) 0.62 (0.18) 6.0 (2.5) 0.76 (0.15)
    Unemployed/on leave 149 87.6 (8.2) 2.56 (1.05) 137 48.4 (17.4) 1.37 (1.72) 150 9.5 (2.8) 0.31 (0.26) 5.4 (2.5) 0.22 (0.22)
    Retired-not working 937 83.0 (12.7) −2.04 (0.64) 842 39.5 (17.2) −7.49 (1.06) 929 9.1 (2.8) −0.04 (0.16) 4.9 (2.1) −0.29 (0.13)
    Retired-working/volunteering 550 86.8 (9.8) 1.79 (0.71) 494 46.0 (16.5) −1.02 (1.17) 549 9.4 (2.4) .026 (0.17) 5.4 (2.2) 0.14 (0.15)
ApoE allele
    ApeE 3/3 2804 87.0 (11.4) (reference) F= 3.6 df=4,4586 (0.03) 2797 15.4 (4.6) (reference) F= 2.7 df=4,4154 (0.03) 2797 9.7 (2.9) (reference) F= 2.7 df=4,4565 (<0.03) 5.6 (2.4) (reference) F= 2.1 df=4,4565 (0.08)
    ApoE 2/3 346 88.2 (9.9) 1.17 (0.64) 344 15.4 (4.5) −.09 (1.10) 344 9.6 (2.6) −0.09 (0.15) 5.8 (2.5) 0.14 (0.13)
    ApoE 4/4 103 85.7 (10.7) −1.36 (1.14) 102 14.4 (3.9) −3.64 (1.93) 102 9.2 (2.4) −0.55 (0.28) 5.2 (2.2) −0.39 (0.24)
    ApoE 2/4** or 3/4 1032 86.1 (12.6) −0.91 (0.41) 1026 14.9 (4.5) −1.12 (0.71) 1026 9.4 (2.8) −0.28 (0.10) 5.5 (2.3) −0.14 (0.08)
    Missing 306 86.8 (8.0) −0.26 (0.68) 308 15.0 (3.9) −1.41 (1.18) 308 9.6 (2.4) −0.12 (0.16) 5.4 (2.2) −0.20 (0.14)
Open in a new tab
*

F-test (degrees freedom model) are presented.

**

only 3 participants had ApoE 2/4 genotype

Table 3 represents associations between the cognitive test scores and selected sociodemographic and cultural variables using multiple linear regression adjusted for age, gender, race/ethnicity and education in English speaking MESA participants. Across all three cognitive tests, age and education were consistently associated with cognitive scores after adjusting for other covariates. Cognitive performance decreased as age increased and as educational attainment decreased. However, differences in associations for some of the other factors were observed for specific tests. These are briefly discussed below.

Table 3.

Multivariate associations between cognitive test scores and sociodemographic characteristics in English-speaking participants of the MESA cohort adjusted for age, gender, race and education. Unstandardized Beta coefficient (Coeff), standard error (SE), Test statistic (t) and p-value (p) are shown.

CASI DSC DIGIT SPANS
Forward Backward
N B (SE) t P N B (SE) t p N B (SE) t p B (SE) t p
Age (years)* 3677 −0.001 (0.005) −2.67, df=3675 0.008 3297 −0.79 (0.03) −30.76, df=3295 <0.001 3664 −0.04 (0.004) −9.96, df=3662 <0.001 −0.03 (0.004) −8.76, df=3662 <0.001
Gender *
    Female 1955 (reference) 1760 (reference) 1945 (reference) (reference)
    Male 1732 0.002 (0.09) 0.24, df=3682 0.81 1537 −4.43 (0.48) −9.33, df=3295 <0.001 1719 0.19 (0.08) 2.48, df =3662 0.01 −0.22 (0.07) −3.12, df =3662 0.002
Race/Ethnicity*
    Non-Hispanic White 1865 (reference) 1665 (reference) 1858 (reference) (reference)
    Chinese 110 −0.04 (0.03) −1.50, df=1973 0.13 105 4.44 (1.37) 3.25, df=1768 0.001 110 −1.16 (0.23) −5.05, df=1966 <0.001 −0.80 (0.21) −3.81, df=1966 <0.001
    Non-Hispanic Black 1205 −0.06 (0.01) −5.02, df=3068 0.001 1046 −10.08(0.54) −18.61, df=2709 <0.001 1200 −0.38 (0.09) −4.39, df=3056 <0.001 −1.17 (0.08) −14.61, df=3056 <0.001
    Hispanic 497 −0.05 (0,02) −2.90, df=2360 0.004 481 −2.74 (0.73) −3.74, df=2144 <0.001 496 −1.21 (0.12) −9.87, df=2352 <0.001 −1.26 (0.11) −11.22, df=2352 <0.001
Education*
    LT High School 254 (reference) 216 (reference) 252 (reference) (reference)
    HS Graduate 634 0.11 (0.02) 5.17, df=886 <0.001 577 8.25 (1.08) 7.62, df=791 <0.001 631 0.71 (0.17) 4.06, df=881 <0.001 0.69 (0.16) 4.64, df=881 <0.001
    Some College 1163 0.14 (0.02) 6.82, df=1415 <0.001 1034 12.91 (1.03) 12.59, df=1248 <0.001 1158 1.13 (0.16) 6.91, df=1408 <0.001 1.22 (0.15) 8.47, df=1408 <0.001
    College Graduate 740 0.18 (0.02) 7.85, df=992 <0.001 675 15.90 (1.09) 14.57, df=889 <0.001 738 1.36 (0.17) 7.79, df=988 <0.001 1.58 (0.16) 10.18, df=988 <0.001
    Post Graduate 886 0.17 (0.02) 7.95, df=1138 <0.001 795 18.77 (1.08) 17.40, df=1009 <0.001 885 1.60 (0.17) 9.29, df=1135 <0.001 1.98 (0.16) 12.92, df=1135 <0.001
Household Income
    LT $20,000 436 (reference) 387 (reference) 434 (reference) (reference)
    $20,000-34,999 638 0.007 (0.02) 0.35, df=1072 0.73 576 1.10 (0.89) 1.23, df=961 0.22 635 −0.06 (0.15) −0.41, df=1067 0.79 0.18 (0.13) 1.38, df=1067 0.17
    $35,000-49,999 639 0.05 (0.02) 2.38, df=1073 0.02 569 1.19 (0.92) 1.30, df=954 0.19 637 0.08 (0.15) 0.57, df=1069 0.47 0.15 (0.14) 1.08, df=1069 0.28
    $50,000-$99,999 1166 0.03 (0.02) 1.83, df=1600 0.07 1058 4.05 (0.87) 4.67, df=1443 <0.001 1163 0.14 (0.14) 0.97, df=1595 0.22 0.45 (0.13) 3.43, df=1595 0.001
    GE $100,000 686 0.05 (0.02) 2.45, df=1120 0.01 614 6.73 (1.00) 6.71, df=999 <0.001 684 0.29 (0.16) 1.80, df=1116 0.04 0.65 (0.15) 4.37, df=1116 <0.001
Neighborhood Income 3662 0.004 (0.002) 1.66, df=3660 0.10 3291 0.62 (0.11) 5.64, df=3295 <0.001 3664 0.008 (0.02) 0.41, df=3662 0.67 0.03 (0.02) 2.01, df=3662 0.04
Health Insurance
    Private 2258 (reference) 2039 (reference) 2249 (reference) (reference)
    Medicare + Suppl 699 −0.01 (0.02) −0.69, df=2955 0.49 619 −0.69 (0.80) −0.69, df=2656 0.32 694 −0.09 (0.13) −0.66, df=2941 0.51 −0.14 (0.12) −1.20, df=2941 0.23
    Medicare no Suppl 411 −0.03 (0.02) −1.71, df=2667 0.09 357 −3.55 (1.25) −3.35, df=2394 0.001 409 −0.13 (0.15) −0.88, df=2656 0.38 −0.16 (0.14) −1.19, df=2656 0.23
    VA/Other 135 0.03 (0.03) 0.97, df=2391 0.33 125 −3.06 (1.15) −2.85, df=2162 0.004 135 0.09 (0.21) 0.47, df=2382 0.64 −0.34 (0.19) −1.77, df=2382 0.08
    None 168 −0.02 (0.02) −0.90, df=2424 0.37 149 −3.55 (1.25) −3.09, df=2186 0.002 168 −0.49 (0.19) −2.64, df=2415 0.008 −0.41 (0.17) −2.39, df=2415 0.02
Number in HH
    One 1095 (reference) 968 (reference) 1091 (reference) (reference)
    Two 1677 0.02 (0.01) 1.80, df=2770 0.07 1523 1.48 (0.56) 2.62, df=2489 0.009 1672 −0.15 (0.09) −1.62, df=2761 0.10 −0.10 (0.08) −1.23, df=2761 0.18
    Three-four 717 −0.01 (0.02) −0.62, df=1810 0.53 638 0.86 (0.73) 1.17, df=1604 0.24 713 0.06 (0.12) 0.50, df=1802 0.62 0.12 (0.11) 1.13, df=1802 0.30
    Five or more 169 0.005 (0.03) 0.19, df=1262 0.85 154 −0.64 (1.22) −0.52,df=1120 0.60 169 0.03 (0.20) 0.16, df=1258 0.88 −0.22 (0.18) −1.21, df=1258 0.20
Birthplace
    Foreign-born 507 (reference) 475 (reference) 497 (reference) (reference)
    US West 225 −0.02 (0.02) −0.67, df=730 0.50 217 10.32 (1.11) 9.30, df=690 <0.001 225 0.38 (0.19) 1.99, df=720 0.05 0.11 (0.17) 0.68, df=720 0.50
    US Midwest 1089 0.01 (0.02) 0.80, df=1594 0.42 1012 6.73 (0.81) 8.29, df=1485 <0.001 1083 0.16 (0.14) 1.18, df=1578 0.24 0.06 (0.12) 0.49, df=1578 0.62
    US South 1385 0.005 (0.02) 0.26, df=1890 0.79 1168 3.39 (0.82) 4.14, df=1643 <0.001 1381 0.17 (0.14) 1.25, df=1876 0.21 −0.05 (0.12) −0.37, df=1876 0.71
    US Northeast 471 0.003 (0.02) 0.14, df=976 0.89 427 5.73 (0.96) 6.00, df=900 <0.001 470 0.41 (0.16) 2.55, df=965 0.01 0.30 (0.14) 2.07, df=965 0.04
Generation in US
    Fourth or More 1746 (reference) 1544 (reference) 1738 (reference) (reference)
    Third 760 −0.01 (0.01 −1.02, df=2504 0.31 685 0.25 (0.68) 0.37, df=2227 0.71 757 0.40 (0.11) 3.64, df=2493 <0.001 0.21 (0.10) 2.04, df=2493 0.04
    Second 554 0.01 (0.02) 0.38, df= 2298 0.70 508 0.82 (0.80) 1.03, df=2050 0.31 554 0.57 (0.13) 4.41, df=2290 <0.001 0.45 (0.12) 3.96, df=2290 <0.00
    First 499 −0.008 (0.02) −0.49, df=2243 0.62 468 −5.77 (0.82) −7.03, df=2010 <0.001 497 0.04 (0.14) 0.27, df=2233 0.79 0.16 (0.12) 1.28, df=2233 10.20
Birth Origin
    US-Born 3178 (reference) 2829 (reference) 3167 (reference) (reference)
    Foreign-Born 499 −0.005 (0.02) −0.30, df=3675 0.77 468 −6.078 (0.74) −8.20, df=3295 <0.001 450 −0.24 (0.12) −1.91, df=2615 0.06 −0.04 (0.11) −0.37, df=2615 0.71
Years in US
    US born 3270 (reference) 2913 (reference) 3259 (reference) (reference)
    LT 15 34 0.01 (0.05) 0.21, df=3302 0.84 31 −3.45 (2.44) −1.41, df=2942 0.16 34 −0.52 (0.40) −1.30, df=3291 0.19 0.27 (0.37) 0.74, df=3291 0.47
    15-30 119 0.01 (0.03) 0.39, df=3387 0.69 114 −5.76 (1.35) −4.25, df=3025 <0.001 119 0.10 (0.23) 0.43, df=3376 0.67 −0.03 (0.21) −0.16, df=3376 0.86
    30+ 254 −0.001 (0.02) −0.06, df=3522 0.95 239 −5.37 (0.96) −5.62, df=3150 <0.001 252 −0.22 (0.16) −1.35, df=3509 0.17 −0.03 (0.15) −0.21, df=3509 0.82
ApoE allele
    ApeE 3/3 2156 (reference) 1934 (reference) 2150 (reference) (reference)
    ApoE 2/3 301 0.02 (0.02) 0.90, df=2455 0.36 273 −0.74 (0.87) −0.84, df=2205 0.40 299 −0.20 (0.14) −1.39, df=2447 0.16 −0.15 (0.13) −1.12, df=2447 0.28
    Any ApoE 4 allele 947 −0.03 0.01) −2.00, df=3101 0.04 756 −1.80 (0.56) −3.20, df=2688 0.001 942 −0.39 (0.09) −4.25, df=3090 <0.001 −0.25 (0.08) −3.02, df=3090 0.002
Open in a new tab
*

These variables are adjusted for the other three in the category (age, gender, race/ethnicity, education).

While men and women performed equally on the CASI (B=0.002, SE=0.09, t(3682)=0.24, p=0.81), some differences by race/ethnicity were observed by test. After adjustments for age, race/ethnicity and education, men performed significantly poorer on the DSC (B=-4.43, SE=0.48, t(3295)=-9.33, p<0.001) and DS Backward (B=-0.22, SE=0.07, t(3662)=-3.12, p=0.002) while performing slightly better on the DS Forward (B=0.19, t(3662)=-2.48, SE=0.08, p=0.01). In terms of ethnicity, Chinese participants scored similarly to Whites on the CASI (B=-0.04, SE=0.03, t(1973)=-1.50, p=0.13), but scored an average 4 points better on the DSC (B=4.44, SE=1.37, t(1768)=-3.25, p=0.001) and slightly lower (DS Forward: B=-1.16, SE=0.23, t(1966)=-5.05, p<001; DS Backward: B=-0.80, SE=0.21, t(1966)=-3.81, p<0.001) on the memory tasks. Non-Hispanic Blacks and Hispanics scored lower on all four tests than did Whites (CASI: B=-0.06, SE=0.01, t(3068)=-5.02, p<0.001; DSC:B=-10.08, SE=0.54, t(2709)=-18.61, p<0.001; DS Forward: B=-0.38, SE=0.09, t(3056)=-4.39, p<0.001; DS Backward: B=-1.17, SE=0.08, t(3056)=-14.61, p<001). While these associations were adjusted for age, gender and education, it is important to keep in mind that many other important factors that influence cognition were not controlled in this study but will be examined in future papers.

Other economic variables ranged in strength of associations after controlling for age, gender, race/ethnicity, and education. Household income did not generally show associations with the CASI, while scores on the DSC ($50,000-$99,999: B=4.05, SE=0.87, t(1443)=4.67, p<001; and > $100,000: B=6.73, SE=1.00, t(999)=-6.71, p<0.001) and DS Backward ($50,000-$99,999: B=0.45, SE=0.13, t(1595)=3.43, p=001; and > $100,000: B=0.65, SE=0.15, t(1116)=4.37, p<0.001) were related to household income. The DSC scores were also related to median neighborhood income (B=0.62, SE=0.11, t(3295)=5.64, p<0.001). Having no health insurance was inversely related to scoring on the DSC (B=-3.55, SE=1.25, t(3186)=-3.09, p=002) and DS Forward (B=-0.49, SE=0.19, t(2415)=-2.64, p=0.008) compared to having private health care coverage. Having two persons living in a household resulted in improved scores on the DSC compared to a single-person household (B=1.48, SE=0.56, t(2489)=2.62, p=0.009).

Cultural factors in these analyses of English-speaking participants focused on birthplace and time living in the US. Persons born in the US, regardless of the region of birth, scored significantly better on the DSC than did those born in other countries (US West: B=10.32, SE=1.11, t(690)=9.30, p < 0.001; US Midwest: B=6.73, SE=0.0.81, t(1485)=8.29, p<0.001; US South: B=3.39, SE=0.82, t(1643)=4.14, p<0.001; US Northeast: B=5.73, SE=0.96, t(900)=6.00, p<0.001). First generation immigrants performed worse on the DSC than did those who had been in the US four generations or longer (B=-5.77, SE=0.82, t(2010)=-7.03, p<0.001). While first generation participants scored about the same on the memory tests as those in the US for 4 or more generations (DS Forward: B=0.04, SE=0.14, t(2493)=3.64, p=0.79; DS Backward: B=0.16, SE=0.12, t(2233)=1.28, p=0.20), second generation (DS Forward: B=0.57, SE=0.13, t(2290)=4.41, p<0.001; DS Backward: B=0.45, SE=0.12, t(2290)=3.96, p<0.001) and third generation (Digit Span Forward: B=0.40, SE=0.11, t(2493)=3.64, p<0.001) did better than others. Compared to US born, immigrants living 30 years or longer in the US performed more poorly on the DSC (B=-5.37, SE=0.96, t(3150)=-5.62, p<0.001). Persons carrying at least one copy of the ApoE E4 allele performed significantly worse than those with two E3 alleles on the DSC (B=-1.80, SE=0.56, t(2688)=-3.20, p=0.001), DS Forward (B=-0.39, SE=0.09, t(3090)=-4.25, p<0.001) and DS Backward (B=-0.25, SE=0.08, t(3090)=-3.02, p=0.002). A strong associations was not found between the ApoE E4 carriers and the CASI perhaps due to the language orientation of the test (B=-0.03, SE=0.01, t(3101)=-2.00, p=0.04).

CONCLUSION

In this study of cognitive performance in the MESA cohort, we found a number of differences among the four racial/ethnic groups that could affect performance on cognitive tests directly or indirectly. Our examination of the unadjusted associations between socio-economic factors and mean cognitive functioning scores revealed that age, education, household income, health insurance, number in the household, place of birth, years in the US, English spoken in the home, generation in the US, and occupational status were significantly and robustly associated with performance on the cognitive tests representing key cognitive domains. Our multivariate regression revealed cognitive performance to be consistently and robustly related to age, race/ethnicity and education but less consistently associated with household income, health insurance, number in household, place of birth, generations in U.S., years in U.S., and APOE4 carrier status. For these socio-cultural factors the pattern varied across tests suggesting that cognitive abilities may be differentially sensitive to these factors. For example, gender was more strongly related to processing speed (DSC) and the more difficult working memory test (Digit Span Backward) with men performing slightly poorer. In terms of racial/ethnic differences, Non-Hispanic Blacks and Hispanics scored lower across domains compared to Non-Hispanic Whites, while Chinese performed better in terms of processing speed, poorer in memory but did not differ from Whites on global cognition. While no differences in global cognition performance (CASI) were found for any specific socioeconomic or cultural variable besides education, lack of health insurance was found to be related to poorer performance in each of these domains. Cultural variables (i.e. place of birth, time in the US) showed the greatest association with processing speed results (DSC). Compared to E3/E3 carriers, individuals who carried an ApoE4 allele scored more poorly in the domain specific tests than on overall global cognition.

The current study found commonly-observed patterns of cognitive test score differences among racial and ethnic groups. A discussion of contributors to this pattern is beyond the scope of this paper, and the reader is referred elsewhere for comprehensive empirical reviews and analyses (e.g. 21-23). However, known contributors are complex, multifactorial, and include the characteristics of the initial test development and validation samples, educational attainment, educational quality, geographic region, acculturation, and culture of the testing environment itself (22-25). In addition, due to patterns of incongruence between impaired cognitive performance scores and behavioral function in minority samples, the clinical validity of meaning ascribed to lower cognitive scores in these groups is also an issue of concern (21, 22).

Although there is a body of literature demonstrating that adjusting for one or more of the contributing factors, particularly education-related variables, can attenuate or even eliminate racial/ethnic differences in cognitive performance (26-28), many of the influencing cultural and socioeconomic factors cannot be adequately quantified or accounted for with statistical approaches (21,25). As a result, caution has been recommended with regard to comparison and interpretation of racial/ethnic group performance differences from cross-sectional data (21). It can be argued that a more reliable approach to cognition research across racial/ethnic and cultural groups may be to examine intra-individual patterns of changes in cognition longitudinally (something hopefully possible in the future via longitudinal MESA cognitive assessments).

The current study provides baseline data for each racial/ethnic group in MESA. The data are not presented for the purpose of interpreting cognitive performance differences between groups at baseline. Rather, these data will be used for future analyses of patterns of cognitive decline among and within groups, including analyses stratified by ethnicity, and will allow identification of differential or similar effects of key variables contributing to cognitive decline longitudinally. These data can also be used to characterize the associations between cognition and the health outcomes measured in MESA. Far less is known about language and cultural influences on cognition function. While it is obvious that persons being tested outside of their primary language may not perform optimally, the extent to which non-native but perhaps fluent language skills have on testing is unknown. There are also other cultural influences that may affect both true cognitive development during childhood in addition to testing ability.

Although the CASI was developed and validated in Chinese and Spanish, it is still very possible that language and cultural biases exist. We tried to eliminate some of these potential biases by including tests in the MESA cognitive battery that relied on parameters other than verbal understanding, such as the DSC which utilizes symbols to measure processing speed and the DS which only use series of numbers to assess memory. However, it is still possible that misunderstandings based on instructions provided by the administrator or other issues may have impacted scoring results. The quality control provided by development of a manual of operations, monitoring and reviewing of technician administration, regular conference calls and retraining when needed were instituted to reduce error caused by this.

Strengths of the MESA cohort include the large sample size and excellent retention in the 5th follow-up examination over a decade later. The inclusion of four racial/ethnic groups within the same set of standardized interviews and procedures also allows more direct comparisons by group than could be made between different cohorts or studies. MESA collected a large variety of sociodemographic and cultural measurements in an attempt to better understand clinical differences by race; those same measures were available for use in evaluating sources of differences in cognition. However, limitations of these data from a social or cultural perspective, as discussed above, remain. It is also possible that residual confounding within variables exists. As multiple testing increased the probability of chance findings, this should be considered when viewing results especially for weak association. Small sample size within cells may also have affected results of regression analyses. We did not include tests of interactions between the many variables presented here which assumes equal relationships and is a limitation of the analyses. It should also be noted that as MESA participants were not a random sample but were recruited in a variety of ways, results may not be generalizable to other populations. Regardless, the results provided here reflect a sound analytic approach to evaluating sociodemographic influences on cognitive function in a multi-ethnic cohort of older adults.

While results of the analyses presented here cannot be considered conclusive due to the many variables that were not included in models, the objectives of this study were met in providing methodologies and preliminary results of cognitive testing in the MESA cohort. In addition to providing a baseline for future exams, these data will be investigated more comprehensively in follow-up papers that will focus on individual topics affecting cognitive processes including environmental factors such as subclinical and clinical diseases, lifestyle behaviors, laboratory risk factors, as well as genetics. The measurement of cognitive function in MESA presents an important opportunity to delve further into a better understanding of factors that influence cognitive performance and to ultimately address interventions for prevention of cognitive decline.

Acknowledgments

Source of Funding: This research was supported by contracts N01-HC-95159, N01-HC-95160, N01-HC-95161, N01-HC-95162, N01-HC-95163, N01-HC-95164, N01-HC-95165, N01-HC-95166, N01-HC-95167, N01-HC-95168 and N01-HC-95169 from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; by grants UL1-TR-000040 and UL1-RR-025005 from NCRR; and by P60 MD 00206 from NIMHD. The authors thank the other investigators, the staff, and the participants of the MESA study for their valuable contributions. A full list of participating MESA investigators and institutions can be found at http://www.mesa-nhlbi.org. MESA provides funding through one or more of these sources to Drs. Fitzpatrick, Alonso, Carnethon, Gottesman, Rapp, Seeman, Sharrett, and Ms. Williams.

Footnotes

Publisher's Disclaimer: This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final citable form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

Conflicts of Interest

No authors have conflicts of interest to report.

References

  • 1.Alzheimer's Association Alzheimer's disease facts and figures. Alzheimer’s Dement. 2012;8:131–168. doi: 10.1016/j.jalz.2012.02.001. 2012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Brookmeyer R, Johnson E, Ziegler-Graham K, et al. Forecasing the global burdern of Alzheimer’s disease. Alzheimers Dement. 2007;3:186–91. doi: 10.1016/j.jalz.2007.04.381. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Chin AL, Negash S, Hamilton R. Diversity and disparity in dementia: the impact of ethnoracial differences in Alzheimer’s disease. Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord. 2011;25:187–195. doi: 10.1097/WAD.0b013e318211c6c9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Demirovic J, Prineas R, Loewnstein D, et al. Prevalence of dementia in three ethnic groups: the South Florida program on aging and health. Ann Epidemiol. 2003;13:472–8. doi: 10.1016/s1047-2797(02)00437-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Tang MX, Cross P, Andrews H, et al. Incidence of AD in African-Americans, Caribbean Hispanics, and Caucasians in Northern Manhattan. Neurology. 2001;56:49–56. doi: 10.1212/wnl.56.1.49. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Alzheimer’s Association Alzheimer’s disease facts and figured. Alzeheimer’s Dement. 2010;6:15894. doi: 10.1016/j.jalz.2010.01.009. 2010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Potter GG, Plassman BL, Burke JR, et al. Cogntive p(reference)ormance and informant reports in the diagnosis of cognitive impairment and dementia in African Americans and whites. Alzheimer’s Dement. 2009;5:445–453. doi: 10.1016/j.jalz.2009.04.1234. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Gurland BJ, Wilder DE, Lantigua R, et al. Rates of dementia in three enthnoracial groups. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 1999;14:481–93. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Sharp ES, Gatz M. The relationship beween education and dementia: an updated systemic review. Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord. 2011;25:289–304. doi: 10.1097/WAD.0b013e318211c83c. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Bild DE, Bluemke DA, Burke G. Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis: Objectives and Design. Am J Epidemiol. 2002;156:871–81. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwf113. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Teng EL, Hasegawa K, Homma A, et al. The Cognitive Abilities Screening Instrument (CASI): A practical test for cross-cultural epidemiological studies of dementia. International Psychogeriatrics. 1994;6:45–58. doi: 10.1017/s1041610294001602. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Li M, Lin KN, Chou P, Wang SJ, Fuh JL, Liu HC. Psychological Testing in Chinese-Speaking Societies. Taipei: Psychological Publishing. 1994. Results of the preliminary testing of CASI C-2.0 (in Chinese). pp. 117–135. [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Tsai RC1, Lin KN, Wang HJ, Liu HC. Evaluating the uses of the total score and the domain scores in the Cognitive Abilities Screening Instrument, Chinese version (CASI C-2.0): results of confirmatory factor analysis. Int Psychogeriatr. 2007;19:1051–63. doi: 10.1017/S1041610207005327. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Graves AB, Larson EB, Edland SD, et al. Prevalence of dementia and its subtypes in the Japanese American population of King County, Washington state. The Kame Project. Am J Epidemiol. 1996;144:760–771. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a009000. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Graves AB, Rajaram L, Bowen JD, McCormick WC, McCurry SM, Larson EB. Cognitive decline and Japanese culture in a cohort of older Japanese Americans in King County, WA: the Kame Project. J Gerontol.B Psychol.Sci.Soc.Sci. 1999;54:S154–S161. doi: 10.1093/geronb/54b.3.s154. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.White L, Petrovitch H, Ross GW, et al. Prevalence of dementia in older Japanese-American men in Hawaii: The Honolulu-Asia Aging Study. Journal of the American Medical Association. 1996;276:955–960. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Wechsler D. Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-III (WAIS-III) Psychological Corporation/Harcourt, Inc; New York: 1996. [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Salthouse TA. Mediation of adult age differences in cognition by reductions in working memory and speed of processing. Psychological Science. 1991;2:179–183. [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Park DC, Smith AD, Lautenschlager G, et al. Mediators of long-term memory performance across the life span. Psychology & Aging. 1996;11:621–637. doi: 10.1037//0882-7974.11.4.621. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Lindenberger U, Baltes PB. Sensory functioning and intelligence in old age: a strong connection. Psychology & Aging. 1994;9:339–355. doi: 10.1037//0882-7974.9.3.339. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Romero HR, Lageman SK, Kamath VV, et al. Challenges in the neuropsychological assessment of ethnic minorities: summit proceedings. Clin Neuropsychol. 2009;23:761–79. doi: 10.1080/13854040902881958. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Manly JJ, Echemendia RJ. Race-specific norms: using the model of hypertension to understand issues of race, culture, and education in neuropsychology. Arch Clin Neuropsychol. 2007;22:319–25. doi: 10.1016/j.acn.2007.01.006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Glymour MM, Manly JJ. Lifecourse social conditions and racial and ethnic patterns of cognitive aging. Neuropsychol Rev. 2008;18:223–54. doi: 10.1007/s11065-008-9064-z. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Gasquoine PG. Research in clinical neuropsychology with Hispanic American participants: a review. Clin Neuropsychol. 2001;15:2–12. doi: 10.1076/clin.15.1.2.1915. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Mindt MR, Byrd D, Saez P, Manly J. Increasing culturally competent neuropsychological services for ethnic minority populations: a call to action. Clin Neuropsychol. 2010;24:429–453. doi: 10.1080/13854040903058960. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Manly JJ, Jacobs DM, Touradji P, Small SA, Stern Y. Reading level attenuates differences in neuropsychological test performance between African American and White elders. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society. 2002;8:341–348. doi: 10.1017/s1355617702813157. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Sachs-Ericsson N, Blazer DG. Racial Differences in Cognitive Decline in a Sample of Community-Dwelling Older Adults: The Mediating Role of Education and Literacy. American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry. 2005;13:968–975. doi: 10.1176/appi.ajgp.13.11.968. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Dotson VM, Kitner-Triolo MH, Evans MK, Zonderman AB. Effects of race and socioeconomic status on the relative influence of education and literacy on cognitive functioning. J Int Neuropsychol Soc. 2009;15:580. doi: 10.1017/S1355617709090821. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES