Age and Education Corrected Older Adult Normative Data for a Short Form Version of the Financial Capacity Instrument

Abstract

Financial capacity is an instrumental activity of daily living (IADL) that comprises multiple abilities and is critical to independence and autonomy in older adults. Due to its cognitive complexity, financial capacity is often the first IADL to show decline in prodromal and clinical Alzheimer’s disease and related disorders. Despite its importance, few standardized assessment measures of financial capacity exist and there is little, if any, normative data available to evaluate financial skills in the elderly. The Financial Capacity Instrument – Short Form (FCI-SF) is a brief measure of financial skills designed to evaluate financial skills in older adults with cognitive impairment. In the current study, we present age- and education-adjusted normative data for FCI-SF variables in a sample of 1344 cognitively normal, community-dwelling older adults participating in the Mayo Clinic Study of Aging (MCSA) in Olmsted County, Minnesota. Individual FCI-SF raw scores were first converted to age-corrected scaled scores based on position within a cumulative frequency distribution and then grouped within four empirically supported and overlapping age ranges. These age-corrected scaled scores were then converted to age- and education-corrected scaled scores using the same methodology. This study has the potential to substantially enhance financial capacity evaluations of older adults through the introduction of age- and education-corrected normative data for the FCI-SF by allowing clinicians to: 1) compare an individual’s performance to that of a sample of similar age and education peers, 2) interpret various aspects of financial capacity relative to a normative sample, and 3) make comparisons between these aspects.

Introduction

Financial capacity is an instrumental activity of daily living (IADL) that comprises multiple skills and is critical to independence and autonomy in older adults. From a clinical standpoint, financial capacity is a term which describes a person’s ability to initiate and complete financial tasks and to make informed, sound decisions about financial matters. From a scientific standpoint, financial capacity has been defined as the ability to independently manage one’s financial affairs in a manner that is consistent with personal values and that promotes self-interest (Marson & Hebert, 2008; Marson, Triebel, & Knight, 2012). Financial capacity thus involves not only task performance skills (e.g., completing a check register accurately, paying bills on time) but also judgment skills that optimize financial self-interest in the context of personal values guiding financial choices. Financial experience and skills can vary widely among cognitively normal adults and are associated with factors that include age and education (American Bar Association/American Psychological Association Assessment of Capacity in Older Adults Project Working Group, 2008); (Marson, et al., 2012).

Clinical assessment of financial capacity is an increasingly important aspect of geriatric care (Widera, Steenpass, Marson, & Sudore, 2011). Due to its cognitive complexity, financial capacity is often the first IADL to show decline in prodromal and clinical Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and related disorders (Marson et al., 2000). For example, changes in complex financial skills occur early and are a functional marker of progression in persons with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) (Triebel et al., 2009; Griffith et al., 2003; Willis, 1996), a transitional stage between normal cognitive aging and AD type dementia (Petersen et al., 2001). Changes in financial abilities are also common in other neurocognitive disorders associated with aging, such as Parkinson’s disease (Martin et al., 2013). As a consequence of these cognitive disorders of aging, clinicians are being increasingly called upon to evaluate the financial skills of older patients (Widera, Steenpass, Marson, & Sudore, 2011).

Currently few standardized assessment measures are available to evaluate financial capacity in adults. Most existing functional assessment measures sample only a few financial items as part of a much broader assessment of functional skills (Loeb, 2003; Loewenstein et al., 1989). One measure dedicated to assessment of financial skills in the elderly is the Financial Capacity Instrument (FCI) (Griffith et al., 2003; Marson, et al., 2000). The FCI is a performance-based measure of financial skills that comprehensively evaluates nine domains of financial activity and has been used in multiple studies of financial capacity in MCI, AD, and PD (Marson et al., 2000; Martin, et al., 2013; Triebel et al., 2009). However, the FCI is a research measure with limited clinical utility as it contains over 100 items and takes an hour or more to administer.

This limitation has recently been addressed through the development of a short form version of the FCI. The Financial Capacity Instrument – Short Form (FCI-SF) is a 37-item measure that can be used to evaluate a range of financial skills in less than 15 minutes. FCI-SF items tap constructs of coin/currency knowledge, financial conceptual knowledge and problem solving, understanding/using a checkbook, and understanding/using a bank statement. Items are summed to establish a series of five component performance scores (i.e., Mental Calculation, Financial Conceptual Knowledge, Single Checkbook/Register Task, Complex Checkbook/Register Task, Using Bank Statement), and also a Total Score (range of 0–74), with higher scores indicating better financial skills. In addition to performance scores, the FCI-SF possesses individual time to completion scores for four specific tasks (i.e., medical deductible problem, simple income tax problem, single checkbook/register task, complex checkbook/register task), a composite time score for the two checkbook tasks, and a composite time score for all tasks.

The FCI-SF was derived from the existing Financial Capacity Instrument (FCI long form, or FCI-LF) that was originally developed to investigate financial decline in AD and related dementias (Griffith, et al., 2003; Marson et al., 2000; Martin, et al., 2013; Triebel et al., 2009). Unlike traditional short form measures, the FCI-SF was not designed to replicate in miniature the FCI-LF, but rather to detect functional impairment in earlier phases of AD. The FCI-SF was empirically built using FCI-LF test items most strongly associated with progression to AD over one year in a sample of patients with amnestic MCI due to AD, as determined by consensus conference diagnosis. The FCI-SF demonstrated excellent internal reliability (a=.90), inter-rater reliability (96% exact score agreement across two raters), and concurrent validity with the FCI-LF (r=.91, p < .001) (Marson et al., in review). In addition, the FCI-SF robustly discriminated control, MCI, and AD group performance (p<.001 for all group differences) and was able to be used to differentiate amyloid positive older adults from amyloid negative older adults (Marson et al., in review).

The purpose of the current study was to establish normative data for the FCI-SF performance and timing variables. As has been shown in previous studies, demographic variables such as age and education account for a substantial amount of variance in performance on tasks with a high cognitive demand (Heaton, Grant, & Matthews, 1991; Malec et al., 1992). As noted, financial capacity is a cognitively mediated functional ability that is likely sensitive to effects of age and education. Thus, the development of age-and education-corrected normative data is essential to expanding the clinical utility of a functional assessment measure like the FCI-SF.

Methods

Participants

The sample consisted of 1344 cognitively normal, community-dwelling older adults ranging in age from 70–96 who were participants in in the Mayo Clinic Study of Aging (MCSA) in Olmsted County, Minnesota. Details regarding the MCSA sample and study are presented elsewhere (Roberts et al., 2008). Participants were eligible for inclusion in the current study if they completed at least one FCI-SF assessment and were diagnosed as “cognitively normal” by an MCSA consensus committee using published criteria (Petersen, 2004; Roberts, et al., 2008). Specifically, cognitively normal participants performed in the normal range for their age and education group on neuropsychological tests, on the Short Test of Mental Status (Kokmen, Smith, Petersen, Tangalos, & Ivnik, 1991), and also received a Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR) score (Morris, 1993) of 0 (based on informant interview). The final decision regarding a participant’s diagnostic status was based on consensus agreement among the MCSA examining physician, nurse, and neuropsychologist. The consensus committee was blind to the FCI-SF results at the time of diagnostic assignment. To better approximate a normal sample, participants were not excluded based on level of prior financial experience.

All study participants provided written informed consent. The institutional review boards of the Mayo Clinic, the Olmstead Medical Center, and the University of Alabama at Birmingham approved the present study.

Procedures

Trained MCSA psychometrists administered and scored the items of the FCI-SF according to well-operationalized criteria (Griffith, et al., 2003; Marson, et al., 2000). The FCI-SF was administered as part of a larger neuropsychological battery. For each participant, the current visit represented his/her initial exposure to the FCI-SF but not necessarily the initial visit/evaluation. Each participant’s responses to the FCI-SF questions were recorded and a portion of the test protocols were reviewed by the UAB research team to ensure scoring accuracy. Demographic information and medical history information were collected in an interview with an MCSA study nurse.

Statistical Analysis

In the tradition of Pauker (1988), overlapping age-range intervals were used to maximize the reliability of this normative study. Five-year midpoint age-ranges were utilized for our sample and resulted in the formation of four age groups: 70–80, 75–85, 80–90, and 85–96. The age range around each midpoint was 10 years. This method is consistent with previous normative studies in older adults (Duff et al., 2003; Ivnik et al., 1992a, 1992b, 1992c). MANOVA and correlational analyses were conducted to demonstrate the appropriateness of using these four age intervals (see Results section below). We conducted both MANOVA and correlational analyses to highlight the need for normative-corrections for the FCI-SF, as has been done previously (Duff et al., 2003).

Prior to conducting age- and education-corrections, large deviations on FCI-SF performance and timing scores were evaluated for each midpoint age-range utilizing the Outlier Labeling Rule (Hoaglin, Iglewicz, & Tukey, 1986) with a previously recommended g value of 2.2 (Hoaglin & Iglewicz, 1987). In total, 8 outliers were removed from FCI-SF performance-based scores (8/1344 or 0.3%) and 81 outliers were removed from FCI-SF timing-based scores (81/1344 or 3.5%).

Consistent with methodology described previously (Duff et al., 2003; Ivnik et al., 1992a, 1992b, 1992c), raw scores on FCI-SF performance variables and completion time for FCI-SF timing variables were placed into a cumulative frequency distribution and then assigned percentile ranks based on their place within that distribution. Next, percentile ranks were converted to scaled scores based on percentile ranges outlined by Ivnik et al. (1992b). These conversions can be found in Tables 5 to 12.

Table 5.

FCI-SF Performance Raw Score Conversion to Age-Corrected Scaled Score for Midpoint Age=75 (Age Range=70–80, n=708).

Scaled Score	Mental Calculation	Financial Conceptual Knowledge	Single Checkbook/Register	Complex Checkbook/Register	Bank Statement Management	Total	%ile
2		0–1	<12	<8	<5	<40	<1
3		2–3		8–11	5	40–42	1
4	0		12	12–13	6	43–45	2
5		4	13–15	14–15	7	46–50	3–5
6		5		16–17	8	51–54	6–10
7	2–3		16–17	18–21	9	55–58	11–18
8		6		22–23	10	59–61	19–28
9			18–19		11	62–64	29–40
10		7		24–25	12	65–67	41–59
11	4			26–27	13	68–69	60–71
12		8	20			70	72–81
13				28	14	71–72	82–89
14							90–94
15						73	95–97
16						74	98
17							99
18							>99

Note. FCI-SF=Financial Capacity Instrument – Short Form.

Table 12.

FCI-SF Timing Score Conversion to Age-Corrected Scaled Scores for Midpoint Age=90 (Age Range=85–96, n=230).

Scaled Score	Medical Deductible Problem	Income Tax Problem	Single Checkbook/Register	Complex Checkbook/Register	2 Checkbook Composite Time	Total Composite Time	%ile
2	>79	>33	>234			>620	<1
3	79	33	220–234			614–620	1
4	72–76	31–32	200–219		540	598–613	2
5	63–71	29–30	176–199		521–539	577–597	3–5
6	53–62	23–28	154–175		489–520	539–576	6–10
7	44–52	15–22	136–153	300	455–488	499–538	11–18
8	30–43	11–14	121–135		432–454	466–498	19–28
9	22–29	7–10	109–120	290–299	408–431	442–465	29–40
10	12–21	4–6	96–108	243–289	361–407	381–441	41–59
11	6–11	3	88–95	224–242	340–360	362–380	60–71
12	3–5	2	81–87	203–223	310–339	333–361	72–81
13	2		74–80	187–202	288–309	303–332	82–89
14		1	70–73	175–186	266–287	291–302	90–94
15	1		60–69	152–174	230–265	258–290	95–97
16			57–59	119–151	193–229	230–257	98
17			52–56	97–118	182–192	202–229	99
18			<52	<97	<182	<202	>99

Note. Timing scores are seconds taken to complete. FCI-SF=Financial Capacity Instrument – Short Form.

After age-corrected scaled scores were calculated, they were converted into age- and education-corrected scaled scores using methodology described previously (Duff, et al., 2003; Malec, et al., 1992). This was accomplished by taking the age-corrected scaled scores and placing them into a frequency distribution according to the following designated education levels: ≤11 years, 12 years, 13–15 years, and ≥16 years. Similar to age-corrected scores, these scaled scores were then assigned percentile ranks based on their place within that distribution. Finally, these percentile ranks were converted to scaled scores. These conversions can be found in Tables 13 to 20. MANOVA and correlational analyses were conducted to demonstrate the appropriateness of introducing education-corrections and of using the designated education intervals (see Results section below). We conducted both MANOVA and correlational analyses to highlight the need for normative-corrections for the FCI-SF, as has been done previously (Duff et al., 2003).

Table 13.

FCI-SF Performance Age- and Education-Corrected Scaled Scores for ≤ 11 Yeas of Education (n=89).

Scaled Score	Mental Calculation	Financial Conceptual Knowledge	Single Checkbook/Register	Complex Checkbook/Register	Bank Statement Management	Total	%ile
2		2					<1
3	2–3	3–4					1
4	4		2–3	2			2
5	4	5				2	3–5
6	5–6		4	3	2		6–10
7		6	5	4	3	3	11–18
8	7–10	7	6	5	4	4	19–28
9			7–8	6	5	5	29–40
10		8	9	7	6–7	6–7	41–59
11	11	9–10	10–11	8	8		60–71
12	>11	11		9	9	8	72–81
13		12	12	10	10	9	82–89
14				11–12	11–12	10	90–94
15		13		13	13	11–15	95–97
16		>13	13	>13		16	98
17			>13		14	17	99
18					>14	18	>99

Note. FCI-SF=Financial Capacity Instrument – Short Form.

Table 20.

FCI-SF Timing Score Conversion to Age-Corrected Scaled Scores for Midpoint Grade ≥16 (n=830).

Scaled Score	Medical Deductible Problem	Income Tax Problem	Single Checkbook/Register	Complex Checkbook/Register	2 Checkbook Composite Time	Total Composite Time	%ile
2	2	2			2–3	2–3	<1
3	3	3	2–3		4	4	1
4	4	4	4		5	5	2
5	5	5	5	2–5	6	6	3–5
6	6	6	6	6	7		6–10
7	7	7	7	7	8	7	11–18
8	8	8	8	8		8	19–28
9	9	9	9	9	9	9	29–40
10	10	10	10	10	10–11	10	41–59
11	11	11–12	11	11	12	11	60–71
12	12		12	12		12	72–81
13	13	13	13	13	13–14	13–14	82–89
14			14–15	14	15	15	90–94
15	14			15–16	16	16	95–97
16	>14		16	17	17	17	98
17		14	17	>17			99
18		>14	>17		>17	>17	>99

Note. FCI-SF=Financial Capacity Instrument – Short Form.

Results

Sample Characteristics

Demographics for the entire sample, as well as for each of the four midpoint age ranges, can be found in Table 1.

Table 1.

Sample Demographics for the FCI-SF Sample and at Midpoint Age Ranges

Variable	Total Sample (n=1344)	MP 75 (n=708)	MP 80 (n=801)	MP 85 (n=548)	MP 90 (n=265)
Age [mean, (SD)]	80.5 (4.7)	76.3 (2.4)	79.5 (3.0)	83.9 (3.0)	87.7 (2.5)
Education [mean, (SD)]	14.5 (2.7)	14.5 (2.5)	14.5 (2.7)	14.5 (2.9)	14.2 (3.1)
Gender [n, (%)]
Male	1202 (51.8)	361 (51)	422 (52.7)	282 (51.5)	137 (51.7)
Female	1120 (48.2)	347 (49)	379 (47.3)	266 (48.5)	128 (48.3)
Race [n, (%)]
Caucasian	2295 (98.8)	701 (99)	791 (98.8)	540 (98.5)	263 (99.2)
Other	27 (1.2)	7 (1)	10 (1.2)	8 (1.5)	2 (0.8)

Note. FCI-SF=Financial Capacity Instrument – Short Form, MP=midpoint age range.

Influence of Age and Education

Influences of age and education on FCI-SF performance and timing variables can be found in Table 2.

Table 2.

Influence of Age and Education on FCI-SF Performance and Timing Variables.

	Influence of Age		Influence of Education
	MANOVA	Pearson’s Correlation	MANOVA	Pearson’s Correlation
FCI-SF Performance Variable
Mental Calculation	(F[3]=1.0, p=.385)	(r=−.05, p=.015)*	(F[3]=38.4, p<.001)**	(r=.21, p<.001)**
Financial Conceptual Knowledge	(F[3]=13.1, p<.001)**	(r=−.15, p<.001)**	(F[3]=45.7, p<.001)**	(r=.23, p<.001)**
Single Checkbook/Register	(F[3]=27.4, p<.001)**	(r=−.22, p<.001)**	(F[3]=23.1, p<.001)**	(r=.13, p<.001)**
Complex Checkbook/Register	(F[3]=29.3, p<.001)**	(r=−.23, p<.001)**	(F[3]=47.7, p<.001)**	(r=.17, p<.001)**
Bank Statement Management	(F[3]=33.4, p<.001)**	(r=−.24, p<.001)**	(F[3]=70.6, p<.001)**	(r=.21, p<.001)**
FCI-SF Total Score	(F[3]=50.8, p<.001)**	(r=−.30, p<.001)**	(F[3]=91.5, p<.001)**	(r=.26, p<.001)**
FCI-SF Timing Variable
Medical Deductible Problem	(F[3]=14.9, p<.001)**	(r=.17, p<.001)**	(F[3]=2.9, p<.033)*	(r=.05, p=.023)*
Income Tax Problem	(F[3]=6.3, p<.001)**	(r=.10, p<.001)**	(F[3]=5.6, p=.001)**	(r=−.08, p<.001)**
Single Checkbook/Register	(F[3]=26.7, p<.001)**	(r=.23, p<.001)**	(F[3]=38.6, p<.001)**	(r=−.23, p<.001)**
Complex Checkbook/Register	(F[3]=25.6, p<.001)**	(r=.23, p<.001)**	(F[3]=14.0, p<.001)**	(r=−.12, p<.001)**
Checkbook/Register Composite Time	(F[3]=34.7, p<.001)**	(r=.26, p<.001)**	(F[3]=29.0, p<.001)**	(r=−.19, p<.001)**
Total Composite Time	(F[3]=37.4, p<.001)**	(r=.27, p<.001)**	(F[3]=28.8, p<.001)**	(r=−.19, p<.001)**

Note.

^*=significant at the p<.05 level

^**=significant at the p<.01 level. FCI-SF=Financial Capacity Instrument – Short Form.

Age exerted a significant effect on FCI-SF performance scores (MANOVA Wilk’s Lambda: F[15,6388]=11.5, p<.001). This effect was present for FCI-SF Total Score and for 4 of the 5 FCI-SF performance scores.

When expressed as a continuous variable, age was significantly correlated with all FCI-SF performance-based scores at the p < .05 level and with 5 of 6 performance-based scores at the .01 level.

FCI-SF timing scores varied according to age group (MANOVA Wilk’s Lambda: F[15,5548]=10.2, p<.001). Age effects were present for all FCI-SF timing variables.

When expressed as a continuous variable, age was significantly correlated with all six FCI-SF timing variables at the p < .01 level.

FCI-SF performance scores varied by participant education level (Wilk’s Lambda: F[15,6948]=27.1, p<.001). Education effects were observed for FCI-SF Total score and for all performance subtests.

When expressed as a continuous variable, education was significantly associated with FCI-SF Total score and all FCI-SF performance scores at the p < .01 level.

Education also exerted a significant effect on FCI-SF timing variables (MANOVA Wilk’s Lambda: F[15,5548]=10.7, p<.001). Education effects were present for FCI-SF Total Composite Time and for all timing variables at the p < .01 level.

When expressed as a continuous variable, education was associated with 5 of 6 FCI-SF timing variables at the p < .01 level of significance and with the remaining FCI-SF timing variable at the p < .05 level of significance.

FCI-SF performance and timing scores and age- and education-corrected norms

FCI performance and timing scores can be found in Tables 3 and 4, respectively. Scores were provided for the entire sample as well as for each midpoint age range.

Table 3.

FCI-SF Performance Scores [mean, (SD)].

Performance Variable	Score Range	Total Sample (n=1337)	MP 75 (n=708)	MP 80 (n=801)	MP 85 (n=548)	MP 90 (n=265)
Mental Calculation	0–4	3.4 (1.1)	3.4 (1.1)	3.4 (1.1)	3.4 (1.2)	3.3 (1.2)
Financial Conceptual Knowledge	0–8	6.7 (1.4)	6.9 (1.3)	6.8 (1.3)	6.6 (1.4)	6.3 (1.5)
Single Checkbook/Register	0–20	18.1 (2.3)	18.5 (2.0)	18.2 (2.2)	17.8 (2.5)	17.2 (2.7)
Complex Checkbook/Register	0–28	22.8 (5.1)	23.8 (4.4)	23.1 (4.9)	21.8 (5.5)	20.9 (6.0)
Bank Statement Management	0–14	11.3 (2.5)	11.9 (2.2)	11.5 (2.4)	10.9 (2.7)	10.3 (2.9)
FCI-SF Total Score	0–74	62.3 (8.6)	64.5 (7.2)	63.0 (8.0)	60.4 (9.2)	58.0 (10.2)

Note. FCI-SF=Financial Capacity Instrument – Short Form, MP=Mid-point age range.

Table 4.

FCI-SF Timing Scores [mean seconds, (SD)].

Variable	Max Time	Total Sample (n=1212)	MP 75 (n=660)	MP 80 (n=730)	MP 85 (n=484)	MP 90 (n=230)
Medical Deductible Problem	90	16.4 (18.7)	13.7 (17.3)	15.4 (18.2)	19.0 (19.6)	21.8 (20.3)
Income Tax Problem	90	6.9 (7.5)	6.3 (6.9)	6.6 (7.2)	7.5 (7.9)	8.4 (8.6)
Single Checkbook/Register	240	117.8 (38.2)	109.0 (34.7)	116.9 (38.3)	124.7 (41.3)	131.6 (42.9)
Complex Checkbook/Register	300	232.8 (58.0)	220.4 (58.6)	230.9 (58.9)	242.7 (55.6)	253.5 (49.1)
Checkbook/Register Composite Time	540	350.6 (84.7)	329.4 (81.4)	347.8 (84.5)	367.4 (83.8)	385.1 (78.7)
Total Composite Time	720	373.9 (94.6)	349.4 (89.5)	369.8 (93.6)	393.9 (93.9)	415.3 (91.1)

Note. FCI-SF=Financial Capacity Instrument – Short Form, MP=Mid-point age range, Max=maximum.

Tables 5–8 contain raw score conversions to age-corrected scaled scores for FCI-SF performance scores for all midpoint age ranges. Tables 9–12 contain raw score conversions to age-corrected scaled scores for FCI-SF timing scores for all midpoint age ranges. Age-corrected scaled scores have a mean of 10 and SD of 3. In using the norms, clinicians should consider the age of the person being assessed in relation to the closest midpoint when choosing the specific age group for normative comparisons. When doing so, clinicians should consider the mean age within that group, as this may not fully correspond to the midpoint age range. These mean ages can be found in Table 1. For example, the actual group mean for midpoint age range 85 is 83.9.

Table 8.

FCI-SF Performance Raw Score Conversion to Age-Corrected Scaled Score for Midpoint Age=90 (Age Range=85–96, n=265).

Scaled Score	Mental Calculation	Financial Conceptual Knowledge	Single Checkbook/Register	Complex Checkbook/Register	Bank Statement Management	Total	%ile
2		1	<10	<6	<3	<34	<1
3		2		6–7	3	34–35	1
4			10–11		4	36–37	2
5	0	3		8–11	5	38–40	3–5
6		4	12–13	12–13	6	41–43	6–10
7	2		14–15	14–15	7	44–47	11–18
8		5		16–17	8	48–51	19–28
9		6	16–17	18–19	9	52–56	29–40
10			18–19	20–23	10–11	57–61	41–59
11	3–4	7		24–25	12	62–65	60–71
12				26–27	13	66–68	72–81
13		8	20	28		69–70	82–89
14					14	71	90–94
15						72	95–97
16						73	98
17						74	99
18							>99

Note. FCI-SF=Financial Capacity Instrument – Short Form.

Table 9.

FCI-SF Timing Score Conversion to Age-Corrected Scaled Scores for Midpoint Age=75 (Age Range=70–80, n=660).

Scaled Score	Medical Deductible Problem	Income Tax Problem	Single Checkbook/Register	Complex Checkbook/Register	2 Checkbook Composite Time	Total Composite Time	%ile
2	>77	>31	>234		>530	>588	<1
3	71–77	30–31	220–234		502–530	547–587	1
4	67–70	27–29	200–219		487–501	534–546	2
5	52–66	21–26	176–199		461–486	500–533	3–5
6	38–51	16–20	154–175	300	442–460	469–499	6–10
7	27–37	12–15	136–153		411–441	433–468	11–18
8	16–26	8–11	121–135	269–299	380–410	402–432	19–28
9	10–15	5–7	109–120	235–268	346–379	370–401	29–40
10	4–9	3–4	96–108	202–234	300–345	323–369	41–59
11	3	2	88–95	178–201	275–299	290–322	60–71
12	2		81–87	163–177	252–274	264–289	72–81
13	1	1	74–80	144–162	229–251	238–263	82–89
14			70–73	128–143	210–228	219–237	90–94
15			60–69	119–127	187–209	197–218	95–97
16			57–59	114–118	184–186	190–196	98
17			52–56	105–113	171–183	179–189	99
18			<51	<105	<171	<179	>99

Note. Timing scores are seconds taken to complete task. FCI-SF=Financial Capacity Instrument – Short Form.

Tables 13–16 provide conversion of age-corrected scaled scores to age- and education-corrected scaled scores for FCI-SF performance scores. Tables 17–20 provide conversion of age-corrected scaled scores to age- and education-corrected scaled scores for FCI-SF timing scores. Age- and education-corrected scaled scores also have a mean of 10 and SD of 3.

Table 16.

FCI-SF Performance Age- and Education-Corrected Scaled Scores for ≥ 16 Years of Education (n=906).

Scaled Score	Mental Calculation	Financial Conceptual Knowledge	Single Checkbook/Register	Complex Checkbook/Register	Bank Statement Management	Total	%ile
2	2–4	2–4	2–3	2	2–3	2	<1
3	5–6		4	3	4	3	1
4		5		4	5	4	2
5			5	5	6	5–6	3–5
6	7–10	6–7	6	6			6–10
7		8	7–8	7	7	7	11–18
8		9		8	8	8–9	19–28
9		10	9	9	9		29–40
10	11	11	10–11	10	10	10	41–59
11	>11	12		11–12	11–12	11	60–71
12			12			14	72–81
13				13	13	13	82–89
14				>13		14–15	90–94
15							95–97
16		13	13			16	98
17		>13	>13		14	>16	99
18					>14		>99

Note. FCI-SF=Financial Capacity Instrument – Short Form.

Table 17.

FCI-SF Timing Score Conversion to Age-Corrected Scaled Scores for Midpoint Grade ≤ 11 (n=80).

Scaled Score	Medical Deductible Problem	Income Tax Problem	Single Checkbook/Register	Complex Checkbook/Register	2 Checkbook Composite Time	Total Composite Time	%ile
2					2		<1
3	2		2		3	2	1
4	3–4	2				3	2
5		3	3	2–5	4		3–5
6	5	4–5	4	6	5	4	6–10
7	6–7	6	5			5	11–18
8		7–8			6	6	19–28
9	8	9	6	7		7	29–40
10	9	10	7	8–9	7–9	8	41–59
11	10		8–9			9	60–71
12	11	11–12		10	10	10	72–81
13	12–13	13	10	11–12	11	11	82–89
14	14		11	13	12–13	12–13	90–94
15	>14		12–16	14	14		95–97
16		14			15	15	98
17		>14	17	15	16	16	99
18			18	>15	>16	>16	>99

Note. FCI-SF=Financial Capacity Instrument – Short Form.

FCI-SF Mental Calculation (Skewness=−1.7, Kurtosis=1.9) and Single Checkbook/Register Transaction (Skewness=−1.4, Kurtosis=2.0) component performance scores were negatively skewed and leptokurtic, the FCI-SF Complex Checkbook/Register Transaction (Skewness=−1.1) performance score was negatively skewed, and the FCI-SF Medical Deductible Problem (Skewness=1.5) score was positively skewed. The FCI-SF Income Tax Problem (Skewness=1.6, Kurtosis=2.0) timing score was positively skewed and leptokurtic. Thus, interpretation of these scales may be improved by converting percentiles into normative z scores, as described by Crawford (2003). All other estimates of skewness and kurtosis for FCI-SF performance and timing variables were between −1.0 and 1.0.

Discussion

In this study, we introduce age- and education-corrected normative data for the FCI-SF using a large sample of community dwelling, cognitively normal, independently functioning older adults. The FCI-SF is a performance-based measure of an aspect of daily functioning (i.e., financial skills) that was derived using items from its parent scale—the FCI-LF (Marson et al., 2000). The FCI-SF has been shown to have excellent internal reliability, inter-rater reliability, and concurrent validity with the FCI-LF (Marson et al., in review). Moreover, the FCI-SF has also been shown to have particular use in identifying older adults with prodromal AD and older adults with significant brain amyloid deposition (Marson et al., in review).

To our knowledge, the current study is the first to establish normative data for a measure of financial capacity. Using previously established methodology (Duff et al., 2003), we first demonstrated the need for normative age and education corrections for both FCI-SF performance and timing scores using both a MANOVA and Pearson’s correlations. Utilizing methodology outlined by Pauker (1988), 4 overlapping midpoint age groups were first established, before percentile and scaled score transformations were conducted on the basis of participant location in a frequency distribution. Education-corrections were then conducted in the same manner using age-corrected scaled scores and education levels recommended by Malec and colleagues (1992). Taken together, these data and associated tables can substantially enhance financial capacity evaluations using the FCI-SF by allowing clinicians to compare an individual’s overall financial capacity performance to that of a sample of peers of similar age and education, and to interpret various components of performance, and timing variables, in reference to a normative sample.

Means and SD for the total sample and for FCI-SF performance- and timing-based scores were provided in Tables 3 and 4, respectively. Although some clinicians prefer to utilize a z score equation (i.e., [individual score − group mean]/SD = z) when calculating normative corrections, the use of the age-corrected scaled scores introduced in Tables 5–12 often yield differing estimates. Whereas a z score equation yields a total z score in relation to a theoretical distribution, scaled scores represent an actual frequency distribution of raw scores directly obtained from the reference sample. As an illustration, take a 75-year-old woman scoring a 46 for FCI-SF Total Score. The utilization of a z score equation (i.e., [46 − 64.5]/7.2) would yield a z score of −2.6 and place her performance at the < 1^st percentile. However, the utilization of scaled score conversions would yield an age-corrected scaled score of 5 and place her performance at the 3^rd–5^th percentile.

Significant group differences were observed across age groups for both FCI-SF performance and timing variables. Thus, age-corrected scaled scores were introduced in Tables 5–8. To better illustrate the magnitude of age-effects in this sample of cognitively normal, community dwelling participants’ examples are provided. For participants in the mid-point age range of 75, FCI-SF Total Score was approximately 65. However, for participants in the mid-point age range of 90, FCI-SF Total Score was over 6 points lower. Age-effects were even more robust for FCI-SF Timing variables. For instance, participants in the mid-point age range of 75 took on average about 350 seconds for FCI-SF Total Composite time. The FCI-SF Total Composite Time increased by approximately 65 seconds, however, for participants with a mid-point age range of 90.

Significant group differences were also observed across education levels for both FCI-SF performance and timing variables. Thus, in addition to age-corrected scaled scores, age- and education-corrected scaled scores were introduced in Tables 13–16. We stress the clinical importance of using scaled scores corrected for both age and education. First, both FCI-SF performance and timing scores were quite different based on education level. For example, the mean FCI-SF Total Score for people with less than a high school education was 52. However, the mean FCI-SF Total score was 13 points higher for people with ≥16 years of education. Education differences were also seen on FCI-SF timing variables. For people who did not graduate from high school, FCI-SF Total Composite Time was 442 seconds. However, for people with ≥16 years of education, FCI-SF Total Composite Time was 359 seconds—a mean difference of 83 seconds.

The group findings for people with more education to fare better on FCI-SF performance and timing scores translates directly to the individual level. For example, an 80-year-old man with 10 years of education scoring a 4 on the FCI-SF Bank Statement Management component score would obtain an age-corrected scaled score of 3 and be considered impaired. However, when utilizing both age- and education-corrections, this same raw score would correspond to a scaled score of 7 and be considered to fall in the low average range.

For clinicians who may not be familiar with converting raw/timing scores to age- and education-corrected scaled scores, instructions are provided below. First, clinicians should convert raw performance or timing scores to age-corrected scaled scores. To do so, a clinician should initially identify which midpoint age range is closest to the age of the person being assessed and locate the corresponding table. Next, the clinician should match the score or time on the FCI-SF variable of interest with its corresponding scaled score in the far left column of the table (i.e., Scaled Score) and record the number. This will be the age-corrected scaled score. Then, the clinician should identify the education level that best matches the person being assessed and locate the corresponding table that contains age- and education-corrections. Finally, the age-corrected scaled score should be matched to the corresponding age- and education-corrected scaled score in the far left column of the table (i.e., Scaled Score).

The following case example is illustrative. Take an 82-year-old woman with 12 years of education who scored a 52 on the FCI-SF Total Score. To convert this raw score into an age- and education-corrected scaled score, the clinician should first select the appropriate midpoint age range, which is this case would be 80 (range 75–85), as 82 is closest to a midpoint of 80. The clinician next should locate the woman’s total FCI-SF score (i.e., 52) under the appropriate column (i.e., Total) in Table 6 using the age 80 midpoint. By looking in the far left column labeled “Scaled Score,” the clinician can then convert the raw score of 52 to its scaled score of 6. Next, to obtain the appropriate education correction, the clinician should locate the age-corrected scaled score of 6 in Table 14 for an education level of 12 years (high school). In this case, the age-corrected scaled score of 6 should be converted into the age- and education-corrected scaled score of 7 by referencing the far left column (i.e., Scaled Score) in Table 14 which corresponds to a percentile range of 11–18.

Table 6.

FCI-SF Performance Raw Score Conversion to Age-Corrected Scaled Score for Midpoint Age=80 (Age Range=75–85, n=801).

Scaled Score	Mental Calculation	Financial Conceptual Knowledge	Single Checkbook/Register	Complex Checkbook/Register	Bank Statement Management	Total	%ile
2		1–2	<10	<6	<4	<37	<1
3		3	10–11	6–7	4	37–40	1
4			12–13	8–11	5	41–42	2
5	0	4	14–15	12–13	6	43–47	3–5
6				14–17	7–8	48–52	6–10
7	2	5	16–17	18–19	9	53–56	11–18
8		6		20–21	10	57–59	19–28
9			18–19	22–23	11	60–62	29–40
10		7		24–25	12	63–66	41–59
11	3–4			26–27	13	67–68	60–71
12		8	20			69–70	72–81
13				28	14	71	82–89
14						72	90–94
15						73	95–97
16						74	98
17							99
18							>99

Note. FCI-SF=Financial Capacity Instrument – Short Form.

Table 14.

FCI-SF Performance Age- and Education-Corrected Scaled Scores for 12 Years of Education (n=727).

Scaled Score	Mental Calculation	Financial Conceptual Knowledge	Single Checkbook/Register	Complex Checkbook/Register	Bank Statement Management	Total	%ile
2				2			<1
3	2–3	2	2	3	2	2	1
4	4	3–4	3		3	3	2
5			4	4	4	4	3–5
6	5–6	5	5–6	5–6	5	5	6–10
7		6	7–8		6	6	11–18
8	7–10	7		7	7	7	19–28
9		8		8	8	8	29–40
10		9	9–11	9–10	9–10	9	41–59
11	11	10		11	11	10	60–71
12	>11	11	12	12	12	11	72–81
13		12		13	13	12	82–89
14				>13		13–14	90–94
15						15	95–97
16			13				98
17		13	>13		14	16	99
18		>13			>14	>16	>99

Note. FCI-SF=Financial Capacity Instrument – Short Form.

While the current study increases the clinical utility of the FCI-SF by providing age- and education-corrections, some limitations should be noted. First, as with any normative study, the utility of the current norms is influenced by the similarity of the individual to the normative sample. For the current sample, participants were mostly white with little ethnic diversity. Thus, the current norms may not be appropriate for all ethnic groups. Second, the current study was comprised solely of older adults, and did not include middle aged and younger adults. Thus, future studies are needed to examine the effects of younger age and education on FCI-SF performance and timing scores and to expand existing provide age- and education-corrections. Third, factors other than age and education (e.g., occupational attainment, socioeconomic status) could be related to variations in financial skills and experience. Future studies should evaluate the impact of these variables on FCI-SF performance. Fourth, significant skewness and kurtosis were observed for some FCI-SF performance and timing scores. Thus, comparisons between these FCI-SF variables and FCI-SF variables that are normally distributed may not be fully appropriate. Finally, some mention of ceiling and floor effects and coarse measurements is warranted. These can sometimes be observed by inspecting the scaled score conversion tables for missing values in the first or last few rows or when scaled scores “jump” certain percentile ranges. For example, FCI-SF Mental Calculation scores are truncated. Consequently, across age and education bands, a score of 0 generally corresponds to mild or moderate impairment and a perfect score (i.e., 4) generally corresponds to average performance. Another example is FCI-SF Complex Checkbook/Register completion time. For this FCI-SF timing variable, the maximum allowable time (i.e., 300 s) corresponds to low average performance across some age and education bands. Therefore, precision/reliability and the ability to quantify change over time may suffer for these FCI-SF variables for high scores (i.e., ceiling effects) or low scores (i.e., floor effects) or when scaled scores are limited to just a few potential values (i.e., coarse measurements).

In spite of these limitations, the present study results indicate that the FCI-SF has promise as a brief clinical assessment measure of financial skills in the elderly. The study presents empirically sound normative data that can be used by practitioners seeking to evaluate the financial skills of older adults in comparison to peers of similar age and education.

Table 7.

FCI-SF Performance Raw Score Conversion to Age-Corrected Scaled Score for Midpoint Age=85 (Age Range=80–90, n=548).

Scaled Score	Mental Calculation	Financial Conceptual Knowledge	Single Checkbook/Register	Complex Checkbook/Register	Bank Statement Management	Total	%ile
2		1–2	<10	<6	<4	<35	<1
3			10–11	6–7	4	35–36	1
4		3		8–9		37–38	2
5	0		12–13	10–13	5	39–42	3–5
6		4	14–15	14–15	6	43–47	6–10
7	2	5		16–17	7–8	48–52	11–18
8			16–17	18–19	9	53–56	19–28
9		6		20–21	10	57–59	29–40
10		7	18–19	22–25	11–12	60–64	41–59
11	3–4					65–67	60–71
12		8	20	26–27	13	68–69	72–81
13					14	70–71	82–89
14				28		72	90–94
15						73	95–97
16							98
17						74	99
18							>99

Note. FCI-SF=Financial Capacity Instrument – Short Form.

Table 10.

FCI-SF Timing Score Conversion to Age-Corrected Scaled Scores for Midpoint Age=80 (Age Range=75–85, n=730).

Scaled Score	Medical Deductible Problem	Income Tax Problem	Single Checkbook/Register	Complex Checkbook/Register	2 Checkbook Composite Time	Total Composite Time	%ile
2	>79	>33	>234		>534	>602	<1
3	74–79	31–33	220–234		526–534	587–602	1
4	67–73	28–30	200–219		505–525	555–586	2
5	58–66	23–27	176–199		482–504	529–554	3–5
6	41–57	17–22	154–175	300	458–481	492–528	6–10
7	30–40	12–16	136–153		432–457	457–491	11–18
8	20–29	9–11	121–135	293–299	404–431	426–456	19–28
9	12–19	6–8	109–120	255–292	373–403	393–425	29–40
10	5–11	3–5	96–108	213–254	324–372	341–392	41–59
11	3–4	2–4	88–95	193–212	290–323	309–340	60–71
12	2		81–87	170–192	266–289	280–308	72–81
13		1	74–80	153–169	238–265	251–279	82–89
14	1		70–73	131–152	217–237	225–250	90–94
15			60–69	120–130	193–216	204–224	95–97
16			57–59	115–119	186–192	197–203	98
17			52–56	104–114	172–185	183–196	99
18			<51	<104	<172	<183	>99

Note. Timing scores are seconds taken to complete. FCI-SF=Financial Capacity Instrument – Short Form.

Table 11.

FCI-SF Timing Score Conversion to Age-Corrected Scaled Scores for Midpoint Age=85 (Age Range=80–90, n=484).

Scaled Score	Medical Deductible Problem	Income Tax Problem	Single Checkbook/Register	Complex Checkbook/Register	2 Checkbook Composite Time	Total Composite Time	%ile
2	>80	>33	>234			>605	<1
3	75–80	33	220–234		539–540	596–605	1
4	71–74	30–31	200–219		536–538	590–595	2
5	61–70	25–29	176–199		501–535	553–589	3–5
6	50–60	20–24	154–175		475–500	524–552	6–10
7	36–49	12–19	136–153	300	445–474	482–523	11–18
8	25–35	10–11	121–135		419–444	447–481	19–28
9	18–24	7–9	109–120	275–299	392–418	415–446	29–40
10	9–17	4–6	96–108	230–274	346–391	368–414	41–59
11	5–8	2–3	88–95	210–229	318–345	342–367	60–71
12	3–4		81–87	188–209	289–317	307–341	72–81
13	2	1	74–80	168–187	260–288	277–306	82–89
14	1		70–73	145–167	230–259	246–276	90–94
15			60–69	121–144	198–229	223–245	95–97
16			57–59	114–120	191–197	209–222	98
17			52–56	96–113	149–190	174–208	99
18			<52	<96	<149	<174	>99

Note. Timing scores are seconds taken to complete. FCI-SF=Financial Capacity Instrument – Short Form.

Table 15.

FCI-SF Performance Age- and Education-Corrected Scaled Scores for 13–15 Years of Education (n=600).

Scaled Score	Mental Calculation	Financial Conceptual Knowledge	Single Checkbook/Register	Complex Checkbook/Register	Bank Statement Management	Total	%ile
2	2–3	2	2–3		2		<1
3	4	3–4		2	3	2–3	1
4	4		4	3–4		4	2
5		5		5	4–5	5	3–5
6	5–6		5–6	6	6	6	6–10
7		6–7	7–8	7	7	7	11–18
8	7–10	8		8	8	8	19–28
9		9	9	9	9	9	29–40
10		10	10–11	10	10	10	41–59
11	11	11		11	11–12	11	60–71
12	>11	12	12	12		12	72–81
13				13	13	13	82–89
14				>13		14	90–94
15						15	95–97
16		13					98
17		>13	13		14	16	99
18			>13		>14	>16	>99

Note. FCI-SF=Financial Capacity Instrument – Short Form.

Table 18.

FCI-SF Timing Score Conversion to Age-Corrected Scaled Scores for Midpoint Grade = 12 (n=648).

Scaled Score	Medical Deductible Problem	Income Tax Problem	Single Checkbook/Register	Complex Checkbook/Register	2 Checkbook Composite Time	Total Composite Time	%ile
2		2–3					<1
3	2	4			2	2	1
4	3		2		3	3	2
5	4–5	5	3	2–5	4	4	3–5
6	6	6	4–5	6	5	5	6–10
7	7	7	6		6	6	11–18
8	8	8	7	7	7–8	7	19–28
9	9	9	8	8–9	9	8–9	29–40
10	10	10	9	10	10	10	41–59
11	11	11	10	11	11		60–71
12	12	12	11	12	12	11	72–81
13	13	13	12	13		12–13	82–89
14			13	14	13		90–94
15	14		14	15	14	14–15	95–97
16	>14		15	16	15	16	98
17		14	16		16–17	17	99
18		>14	>16	>16	>17	>17	>99

Note. FCI-SF=Financial Capacity Instrument – Short Form.

Table 19.

FCI-SF Timing Score Conversion to Age-Corrected Scaled Scores for Midpoint Grade = 13–15 (n=546).

Scaled Score	Medical Deductible Problem	Income Tax Problem	Single Checkbook/Register	Complex Checkbook/Register	2 Checkbook Composite Time	Total Composite Time	%ile
2	2–3		2		2–3	2–3	<1
3	4	2	3		4	4	1
4		3					2
5	5	4	4	2–5	5	5	3–5
6	6	5	5	6	6	6	6–10
7	7	6–7	6	7	7	7	11–18
8	8	8	7	8	8	8	19–28
9	9	9	8	9	9	9	29–40
10	10	10	9	10	10	10	41–59
11	11	11	10	11	11	11	60–71
12	12	12	11	12	12	12	72–81
13	13	13	12	13	13	13	82–89
14			13	14	14	14	90–94
15	14		14–15	15	15	15	95–97
16	>14			16			98
17		14	16–17	17	16–17	16	99
18		>14	>17	>17	>17	>16	>99

Note. FCI-SF=Financial Capacity Instrument – Short Form.