Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T13:04:12.025Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Life satisfaction prevents decline in working memory, spatial cognition, and processing speed: Latent change score analyses across 23 years

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 April 2022

Nur Hani Zainal*
Affiliation:
Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA Department of Psychology, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania, USA National University of Singapore, Singapore
Michelle G. Newman
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania, USA
*
*Author for correspondence: Nur Hani Zainal, E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract

Background

Within-person growth in life satisfaction (LS) can protect against declines in cognitive functioning, and, conversely, over time. However, most studies have been cross-sectional, thereby precluding causal inferences. Thus, we used bivariate dual latent change score modeling to test within-person change-to-future change relations between LS and cognition.

Method

Community adults completed in-person tests of verbal working memory (WM), processing speed, spatial cognition, and an LS self-report. Five waves of assessment occurred across 23 years.

Results

Reduction in LS predicted future decreases in spatial cognition, processing speed, and verbal WM (|d| = 0.150–0.354). Additionally, depletion in processing speed and verbal WM predicted a future decrease in LS (d = 0.142–0.269). However, change in spatial cognition did not predict change in LS (|d| = 0.085).

Discussion

LS and verbal WM and processing speed predicted one another across long durations. Evidence-based therapies can be augmented to target LS and cognition.

Type
Research Article
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the European Psychiatric Association

The challenges and opportunities of our daily lives require most of us to harness specific cognitive function abilities for successful navigation. These cognitive capacities include verbal working memory (WM; fluency to process mentally and change auditory data in real-time) [Reference Cowan, Rouder, Blume and Saults1], spatial cognition (ability to cognitively generate, sustain, retrieve, and alter visual objects) [Reference Klencklen, Despres and Dufour2], and processing speed (capacity to fulfill rudimentary or intricate tasks that require persistent attention efficiently) [Reference Eckert3]. These cognitive indices have been reliably correlated with various markers of biopsychosocial health. Diverse health indicators include mood regulation [Reference Nigg4,Reference Zainal and Newman5], physical health [Reference Quinones, Gallegos, Lin and Heffner6,Reference Zainal and Newman7], school performance [Reference Cook, Braaten and Surman8], work productivity [Reference van Dijk, van Rhenen, Murre and Verwijk9], and quality of personal and professional relationships [Reference Knight and Baune10]. This is likely because spatial cognition, verbal WM, and processing speed are related to myriad basic attentional and complex higher-order executive functioning skills [Reference Salthouse11] and emotion modulation tactics [Reference Groves, Kofler, Wells, Day and Chan12]. Thus, enhancing our understanding of the predictors and outcomes of these aspects of cognitive function is essential.

It has been theorized that factors which facilitate the growth of psychological well-being, such as life satisfaction (LS), may prevent future long-term decline in cognitive abilities [Reference Fiocco and Yaffe13,Reference Ratigan, Kritz-Silverstein and Barrett-Connor14]. LS is the subjective global appraisal of the degree to which cumulative experiences thus far have been, on balance, fulfilling, and rewarding in the realms of health, relationships, career, and lived environments [Reference Veenhoven, Glatzer, Camfield, Møller and Rojas15]. Relatedly, empirical evidence has shown that LS is a construct distinct from dispositional negative affect or worry (tendency to assume the worst) and depression (prolonged low mood) at a single time point and across long developmental periods [Reference Hounkpatin, Boyce, Dunn and Wood16,Reference Johnson, Neyer and Finn17].

Reduction in LS may lead to subsequent cognitive function deterioration across long durations via suboptimal lifestyle choices such as infrequent exercise and unhealthy diet and nutrition [Reference Grant, Wardle and Steptoe18,Reference Kim, Park, Sun, Smith and Peterson19]. Failure to engage in health-promoting activities could lead to increased inflammation in executive functioning and related brain regions and weakened cardiovascular strength, thus causing long-term adverse effects of aging on cognitive function [Reference Baumann, Tchicaya, Lorentz and Le Bihan20Reference Zainal and Newman23]. Such ideas are consistent with scar theories which argue that behavioral inactivity and repetitive negative thinking that may accompany a reduction in LS could over time negatively impact cognitive function abilities [Reference Zainal and Newman24,Reference Zainal and Newman25]. This process may occur through increased allostatic load (i.e., stress-linked wear and tear of the hypothalamic-pituitary-axis and cognitive function-related brain regions) [Reference D’Amico, Amestoy and Fiocco26] across long periods. Thus, a decrease in LS may dovetail with worsening of spatial cognition, verbal WM, and processing speed in the long term.

As yet, six longitudinal studies have tested the aforesaid idea that reduced LS and related concepts would be associated with subsequent cognitive function decline. For example, among older Swedish community adults, diminished LS coincided with a decrease in self-rated cognitive capacity from working life to post-retirement [Reference Hansson, Buratti, Thorvaldsson, Johansson and Berg27]; however, whether LS would forecast performance-based cognitive function scores could not be deduced from that study. Other studies suggest such a possibility. Using latent growth curve modeling, Wilson et al. [Reference Wilson, Boyle, Segawa, Yu, Begeny and Anagnos28] and Salthouse [Reference Salthouse29] observed that between persons, lower scores on LS and related indices (e.g., satisfaction with relationships) predicted a more rapid decline in processing speed, global cognition, and memory over 6–13 years in early, middle, and late adulthood. Likewise, using hierarchical linear modeling, within persons, an 8-year decrease in psychological well-being was correlated with reductions in processing speed, memory, and global cognition among English midlife and older community adults during that period [Reference Allerhand, Gale and Deary30]; despite that, lead–lag relations were not examined in the study. A Switzerland-based study [Reference Ihle, Ghisletta, Gouveia, Gouveia, Oris and Maurer31] that tested lead–lag associations showed that reduced LS predicted a 6-year decline in set-shifting (i.e., the adeptness to change from one mental mode to another [Reference Miyake and Friedman32]); however, due to its two-wave design, change-to-future change relations could not be inferred. Relatedly, within persons, a lower prior level of LS resulted in a greater 1.5–2-year decline in perceptual speed among older German adults across six waves of assessment [Reference Gerstorf, Lövdén, Röcke, Smith and Lindenberger33].

Simultaneously, theorists have proposed that factors impeding goal attainment, such as a decline in cognitive function, may predict a reduction in LS across long durations [Reference Baumeister, Schmeichel and Vohs34,Reference Diener, Suh, Lucas and Smith35]. This is because such executive functioning-related capacities are essential to engender and sustain progress and a sense of fulfillment in school, career, relationships, and other realms reflective of biopsychosocial health across time [Reference Diamond36,Reference Diener, Oishi and Tay37]. It is also plausible that increased cognitive function, such as processing speed, spatial cognition, and verbal WM, are protective against depletion of LS across development as these resources aid optimal problem definition, planning, and skillful decision-making [Reference Biederman, Petty, Fried, Doyle, Spencer and Seidman38,Reference Swanson and Fung39]. Such cognitive resources-related strategic approaches include sacrificing short-term relief or pleasure to fulfill long-term aspirations [Reference Hofmann, Schmeichel and Baddeley40]. Overall, it is tenable that a decline in verbal WM, processing speed and spatial cognition would predict a subsequent decrease in LS.

Thus far, seven studies have tested the proposition that a decline in LS would be related to future cognitive function deficits or vice versa. One earlier study evidenced no relation between LS and global cognition 6 years later in middle- to older-aged adults [Reference Comijs, Dik, Aartsen, Deeg and Jonker41]. Conversely, middle-aged and older men who displayed stronger verbal WM and processing speed reported higher LS or positive affect following 7–12 years [Reference Rouch, Achour-Crawford, Roche, Castro-Lionard, Laurent and Ntougou Assoumou42,Reference Siedlecki, Yazdani, Minahan and Falzarano43]. Similarly, another study that used ordinary least squares (OLS) regression demonstrated that higher baseline spatial cognition or processing speed scores predicted greater LS after 3 years in younger, middle-aged, and older adults [Reference Enkvist, Ekström and Elmståhl44]. Moreover, stronger WM ability predicted higher trait and daily levels of LS among college students [Reference Pe, Koval and Kuppens45]. In addition to performance-based cognitive function measures, two recent studies [Reference Hansson, Buratti, Thorvaldsson, Johansson and Berg27,Reference Hansson, Buratti, Thorvaldsson, Johansson, Berg and Henkens46] showed that a decline in subjective cognitive capacity was associated with a later reduction in LS among adults transitioning to retirement.

Despite the progress made thus far to understand the relations between LS and cognitive function, literature still presents with several limitations the current study aimed to remedy. First, most studies testing LS–cognitive function relations were cross-sectional (e.g., [47–49]), thus precluding causal inferences due to the absence of temporal precedence. Second, most prior studies on this topic used OLS regression, latent growth modeling, and cross-lagged panel models, which permit conclusions on between-person, but not within-person, associations [Reference Ghisletta and McArdle50,Reference Hamaker, Kuiper and Grasman51]. This is problematic as theories above on LS–cognitive function connections imply how within-person changes in each unique variable predict one another across the lifespan. Furthermore, relations between- and within-persons can differ in magnitude and direction [Reference Zainal and Newman5,Reference Zainal and Newman52], underlining the need to tether within-person analytic methods to test preceding theories. Therefore, the present study used bivariate dual latent change score (BLCS) modeling. BLCS modeling is an advanced longitudinal structural equation modeling (SEM) technique that could examine within-person change-to-future change relations among unique variables [Reference McArdle, Grimm, van Montfort, Oud and Satorra53,Reference Usami, Hayes and McArdle54]. BLCS reduces biases arising from between-person effects, measurement error, autoregressive self-feedback loops, baseline and prior scores, and regression to the mean [Reference Klopack and Wickrama55]. BLCS thus allows a better understanding of how a change in cognitive function at a time lag is linked to a change in LS at a future time lag (and conversely) [Reference Hounkpatin, Boyce, Dunn and Wood16].

A better comprehension of the within-person factors that predict the decline in LS and cognitive function is imperative. Globally, societies are currently grappling with increasing economic, psychosocial, and public health burdens linked to diverse mental illnesses (e.g., depression and anxiety) and neurocognitive disorders (e.g., dementia) that compromise LS [56–58]. Studies that identify the risk factors for decline in cognitive function and LS may be helpful for developing effective prevention, early identification, and treatment strategies. Moreover, within-person change lies at the heart of clinical science [Reference Zainal and Newman52,Reference Wright and Woods59]. Thus, based on the preceding theories and data, we used BLCS modeling to test lead–lag associations between LS and cognitive function across five time points spanning 23 years in a community adult sample. First, we hypothesized that within persons, a decline in LS at a prior time lag would be significantly related to decreased verbal WM, processing speed, and spatial cognition at the next adjacent time lag (Hypothesis 1). Likewise, we predicted that within-person decline in processing speed, verbal WM, and spatial cognition at a previous time lag would be substantially associated with a reduction in LS at the adjacent time lag (Hypothesis 2).

Method

Participants

The current study examined participants (n = 560) who gave permission to undergo face-to-face neuropsychology testing and tocomplete in-person self-report measures such as the LS questionnaire. Forty participants were removed from our analyses as they were diagnosed with dementia, leaving a final sample of 520 participants.Footnote 1 Of the 520 participants, 54.8% identified as probable or definite fraternal twins, 30.8% as identical twins, and the remaining 14.4% mentioned they did not know the nature of their twinship. In addition, 52% were reared together, and the remaining 48% were reared apart. The current sample were middle- to older-aged adults at baseline (M age = 59.61 years, SD = 8.98, range = 40.57–84.11; refer to Table S1 in the Supplementary Material [SM] for demographics at each time point). Females comprised 58% (n = 302) of the sample. Concerning formal education, 8.46% received elementary to lower secondary school, 21.20% had a high school education, and 70.40% attended college or higher academia, which included courses to acquire specialized skill sets (e.g., forestry and business).

Procedures

Using the Swedish Adoption/Twin Study of Aging publicly available dataset, the present study conducted a theoretically informed secondary analysis. The Karolinska Institutet provided ethical approval, and all participants gave voluntary informed consent. We were interested in the relations between LS and cognitive function (processing speed, verbal WM, and spatial cognition scores) instead of genetic heritability [Reference Petkus, Reynolds, Wetherell, Kremen and Gatz62]. The study comprised five waves of assessment during these years: 1987 (Time 1; T1), 1990 (Time 2; T2), 1993 (Time 3; T3), 2004 (Time 4; T4), and 2007 (Time 5; T5). Due to funding deficits, a sizeable 11-year gap occurred between 1993 and 2004, and in-person cognitive testing was unavailable during this period. This led to five available time points with four sequential time lags ranging from 3 to 11 years. Thus, the present study examined if within-person change at a time lag (ΔT) in a variable was associated with change at the next sequential time lag (ΔT + 1) in another variable. The following measures were administered at all five time points.

Measures

Life satisfaction

An 8-item self-report measure of LS adapted from [Reference Wood, Wylie and Sheafor63]) was used. Respondents endorsed items on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree. It showed satisfactory-to-good between-person reliability (Cronbach’s α = .70–.79) and within-person reliability (α = .70) in the current study. Furthermore, the measure demonstrated good retest reliability (r = .79) [Reference Wood, Wylie and Sheafor63], as well as strong convergent and discriminant validity [Reference Harris, Pedersen, Stacey, McClearn and Nesselroade64,Reference Lehto, Karlsson, Lundholm and Pedersen65]. Table S2 in the SM lists the items in this measure and details how the eight items in the current scale were derived from the original 13-item scale [Reference Harris, Pedersen, Stacey, McClearn and Nesselroade64].

Spatial cognition

The Koh’s block design (BD) and card rotations (CR) tests assessed spatial cognition. Koh’s BD test parallels the Wechsler’s Adult Intelligence Scale [Reference Wechsler66] BD subtest; participants were instructed to replicate seven increasingly difficult square- and triangle-filled figures with two-colored blocks. In addition, the CR test required participants to correctly select, upon mental rotation, one out of four items that matched a target figure on display. Scores for both tests indicated the total completion time (in seconds) for each presented figure. These assessments have shown strong between-person reliability (α = .81–.85) and within-person reliability (α = .90) herein, high 33-day test–retest reliability (r = .90) [Reference Brand, Pieterse and Frost67], and good discriminant and convergent validity [Reference Finkel, Reynolds, McArdle and Pedersen68].

Processing speed

The widely used oral version of the symbol digit modalities (SDM) test [Reference Pahlen, Hamdi, Dahl Aslan, Horwitz, Panizzon and Petersen69,Reference Smith70] measured processing speed capacity.Footnote 2 Participants orally indicated each integer (ranging from 1 to 9) linked to a specific unique symbol. The SDM test was administered in two blocks of 50 integers, each for 45 s. Possible scores ranged from 0 to 100. In the current study, the SDM test showed strong between-person (α = .90–.92) and within-person reliability (α = .90). Furthermore, it has shown strong 2-week retest reliability (r = .74), convergent and discriminant validity, with scores of measures of different constructs [71–73].

Verbal WM

The digit span (DS) test-backward was administered to assess verbal WM by instructing participants to register and recite three-to-nine number sequences of growing length in the reverse direction. The DS test-backward score was computed by summing the total number of digit sequences accurately recalled. Although DS test-forward measures verbal WM repetition, DS test-backward captures WM and attentional control processes reliably. It has excellent between-person (α = .93) and within-person reliability (α = .89), as well as retest reliability (α = .83) [Reference Wechsler74]. Moreover, it has strong discriminant and convergent validity [Reference Hilbert, Nakagawa, Puci, Zech and Bühner75,Reference Ryan, Townsend and Kreiner76].

Data analyses

All preprocessing and data analyses were conducted with R version 4.1.0 [77] and RStudio Version 1.4.1717. First, using the psych R package [Reference Revelle78], we inspected the data, determined that all variables were normally distributed, and observed no outliers (see Table S3 in the SM for descriptive statistics and correlation matrix of study variables). The psych R package [Reference Revelle78] was also used to conduct psychometric analyses (e.g., compute reliabilities or internal consistency of scores on measures). Next, a series of SEM analyses were performed. To evaluate SEM model fit, these indices were used: Chi-square with degrees of freedom (χ2(df)) and related p-value; confirmatory fit index (CFI) [Reference Bentler79]; and root-mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA) [Reference Steiger80]. Moreover, nesting within twins was accounted for by utilizing the lavaan.survey R package [Reference Oberski81]. Furthermore, maximum likelihood with robust sandwich estimators were used.

Figure S1 in the SM details the number of participants who completed the in-person cognitive function tests and the LS self-report at each time point. Missingness (a total of 24% of all observations) was managed by using multiple imputation with the raw item scores following recommended guidelines [Reference Graham82]. Data were aggregated across 100 multiply imputed datasets with the predictive mean matching algorithm, each with a maximum of 100 iterations; a gold standard approach in aging research [Reference MacDonald, Stawski, Schaie and Willis83]. Auxiliary variables that could have been related to dropout status (age, gender, education, baseline scores of cognitive functioning, and LS) were included in the multiple imputation models at all time points; a method that adjusts for any systematic trends in dropouts and yields parameter estimates aligned with the missing at random assumption. Moreover, multiple imputation (vs. complete case analysis) tends to produce unbiased, efficient, and precise parameter and standard error estimates that mirror those derived from complete datasets, even if total missingness exceeds 50% [Reference Lee and Shi84,Reference Madley-Dowd, Hughes, Tilling and Heron85].Footnote 3

As a precursor to longitudinal SEM, we tested for longitudinal measurement invariance of all the measures to determine if their psychometric properties were reproducible across all time points [Reference Widaman, Ferrer and Conger86]. All levels of invariance were gradually tested in this order with increasingly restrictive models: configural (equal factor structure, varying factor loadings [λs], item intercepts [τs], and item residual variances [θs]); metric (equal factor structure, λs, varying τs, and θs); scalar (equal factor structure, λs, and τs, varying θs); and strict (equal factor structure, λs, τs, and θs). Measurement invariance was indicated by trivial changes in the practical fit indices; ΔCFI < −.010 or ΔRMSEA < +.030 when comparing the more (vs. less) constrained models [Reference Cheung and Rensvold87,Reference Zainal, Newman and Hong88].

Next, we conducted a series of LCS models to test Hypotheses 1 and 2. Latent change scores were computed by fixing the regression path between scores at a prior time point and the next adjacent time point equal to 1 [Reference Ghisletta and McArdle50]. This indicated that a certain amount of the subsequent score was equivalent to the prior score, and the residual score was construed as the latent change score. Equations (1) and (2) below denote univariate dual LCS models for LS and cognitive function variables. ∆C and ∆L signify the latent change in each cognitive function variable and LS at a time lag (∆T), respectively. The term α indicates the between-person constant change parameter of the slope of a variable, and β relays within-person proportional effects (autoregressive self-feedback loops of change in a variable forecasting future change in itself).

(1) $$ \varDelta {C}_{\left[\varDelta T\right]}\hskip0.35em =\hskip0.35em {\alpha}_C\hskip0.35em \ast \hskip0.35em {C}_S+{\beta}_c\hskip0.35em \ast \hskip0.35em {C}_{\left[\varDelta T-1\right]}. $$
(2) $$ \varDelta {L}_{\left[\varDelta T\right]}\hskip0.35em =\hskip0.35em {\alpha}_L\hskip0.35em \ast \hskip0.35em {L}_S+{\beta}_c\hskip0.35em \ast \hskip0.35em {L}_{\left[\varDelta T-1\right]}. $$

BLCS models were then conducted to test dynamic relations between LS and cognitive function within and between persons. By combining attributes of the cross-lagged panel and latent growth curve models, BLCS models examine change in each variable from one time point to an adjacent time point in a time-sequential manner across all time points [Reference Grimm and Ram89]. It computes within-person coupling effects (δ; cross-lagged effects of change in a variable at a time lag predicting change in another variable at a successive time lag). Simultaneously, BLCS models minimize biases stemming from measurement unreliability, regression to the mean, baseline scores and between-persons (or trait-level) intercepts, variances, constant change, and other model parameters [Reference Matusik, Hollenbeck and Mitchell90]. Equations (3) and (4) denote bivariate LCS models examined herein:

(3) $$ \varDelta {C}_{\left[\varDelta T\right]}\hskip0.35em =\hskip0.35em {\alpha}_C\hskip0.35em \ast \hskip0.35em {C}_S+{\beta}_c\hskip0.35em \ast \hskip0.35em {C}_{\left[\varDelta T-1\right]}+{\delta}_L\hskip0.35em \ast \hskip0.35em {L}_{\left[\varDelta T-1\right]}, $$
(4) $$ \varDelta {L}_{\left[\varDelta T\right]}\hskip0.35em =\hskip0.35em {\alpha}_L\hskip0.35em \ast \hskip0.35em {L}_S+{\beta}_c\hskip0.35em \ast \hskip0.35em {L}_{\left[\varDelta T-1\right]}+{\delta}_C\hskip0.35em \ast \hskip0.35em {C}_{\left[\varDelta T-1\right]}. $$

Furthermore, permitting within-person change-to-future change cross-construct coupling effects to be freely estimated across time-lags increases standard errors. Thus, following recommendations [Reference McArdle91], we fixed the cross-construct coupling effects to be equal. Figure 1 displays the graphical representation of a BLCS model and embedded parameters. Furthermore, to account for differences in time-lag length herein (i.e., 3 vs. 11 year), we conducted a chi-square (∆χ 2(df)) difference test [Reference Sardeshmukh and Vandenberg92] to examine if time-lag length significantly moderated critical parameter estimates (i.e., cross-construct coupling effects). Moreover, to determine if a change in LS predicting future change in cognitive functioning was stronger than vice versa, we conducted a ∆χ 2(df) test of BLCS models with and without equality constraints on the within-person coupling effects. In addition, given multiple comparisons of parameter estimates within and across BLCS models, we used the mixture distribution approach of alpha correction recommended by Ke and Wang [Reference Ke and Wang93] and Wang and Yang [Reference Wang, Yang, Emilio, Steven and Kevin94], which reduces the odds of Type I error in BLCS models. Based on simulations using this approach, these authors recommend that for our current sample size (N = 520) and our five measurement points, a value of p ≤ 0.029 would be the optimal cutoff to reduce the likelihood of Type I error [Reference Ke and Wang93,Reference Wang, Yang, Emilio, Steven and Kevin94]. Furthermore, Cohen’s d effect sizes were computed with the formula d = β/(SE(β)) × √(2/n) [Reference Dunlap, Cortina, Vaslow and Burke95], such that d values of 0.2, 0.5, and 0.8 indicated small, moderate, and large effects, respectively.

Figure 1. Bivariate dual latent change score model of LS and cognitive function.

Abbreviations: COG, global cognition; e, item-level residual error; LS, life satisfaction; T1, Time 1 (1987); T2, Time 2 (1990); T3, Time 3 (1993); T4, Time 4 (2004); T5, Time 5 (2007); α, between-person constant change; β, within-person proportional change (change in a variable predicting future change in itself); Δ, change in a variable; δ, within-person cross-domain coupling effect (change in a variable predicting future change in another variable); λ, factor loading.

Power analysis

A Monte Carlo power analysis mirroring study conditions (a gold standard recommended approach) was conducted using the RAMpath R package [Reference Zhang, Hamagami, Grimm and McArdle96]. To detect within-person change-to-future change cross-construct (coupling effects) and related parameter estimates (e.g., mean and variance) with conservative and small effect sizes ranging from |d| = 0.10 to 0.20, the current study had 97.4–100.0% power. Thus, the current study had an adequate sample size to conduct BLCS analyses.

Results

Longitudinal measurement invariance

As shown in Table 1, across all time points, the two-factor CFA model that included LS and each cognitive function variable displayed measurement invariance at the strict level (equal λs, τs, and εs). This meant that measures herein had comparable psychometric properties and could be construed along with the same metric at all time points. Thus, longitudinal SEM was appropriate for this dataset.

Table 1. Longitudinal measurement invariance of the four-factor model of LS and cognition.

Abbreviations: CFI, confirmatory fit index; LS, life satisfaction; RMSEA, root-mean-square error of approximation; WM, working memory; εs, residual variances; λs, factor loadings; τs, intercepts.

Univariate latent change score models

Table 2 demonstrates that the model fit indices for the ULCS models were good for LS (χ2(df = 13) = 50.479, p < 0.001, CFI = .963, RMSEA = .058), spatial cognition (χ2(df = 13) = 63.031, p < 0.001, CFI = .969, RMSEA = .086), verbal WM (χ2(df = 13) = 31.780, p < 0.001, CFI = .954, RMSEA = .053), and processing speed (χ2(df = 13) = 75.714, p < 0.001, CFI = .941, RMSEA = .097). Within persons, higher level of cognitive functioning at a prior time point was significantly associated with greater rise in cognitive functioning at the next time lag for all specific cognitive functioning indices (spatial cognition: β = 0.341, 95% CI [0.192, 0.491], p < 0.001, d = 0.278; verbal WM: β = 0.733, 95% CI [0.213, 1.253], p = 0.006, d = 0.172; processing speed: β = 0.234, 95% CI [0.114, 0.354], p < 0.001, d = 0.238). However, level of LS at a previous time point was not significantly related to future change in itself within persons (β = −0.043, 95% CI [−0.247, 0.161], p = 0.680, d = −0.036).

Table 2. Univariate latent change score models of each variable.

Abbreviations: CFI, confirmatory fit index; df, degrees of freedom; LS, life satisfaction; RMSEA, root-mean-square error of approximation; VSP, visual–spatial processing.

* p < 0.05.

** p < 0.01.

*** p < 0.001.

Bivariate dual latent change score models

Life satisfaction and spatial cognition

Table 3 shows that the BLCS model examining within-person change-to-future change associations between LS and spatial cognition had good model fit (χ2(df = 40) = 118.780, p < 0.001, CFI = .968, RMSEA = .063). Within persons, prior greater decrease in LS at a 3–10-year time lag was significantly linked to higher future reduction in spatial cognition ability at the following time lag (β = −12.661, 95% CI [−22.892, −2.430], p = 0.015, d = −0.150). However, change in spatial cognition at a time lag was not significantly related to change in LS at the next adjacent time lag (β = −0.030, 95% CI [−0.072, 0.013], p = 0.177, d = −0.085). In addition, the cross-lagged change-to-future change association was significantly stronger for LS predicting spatial cognition ability than the reverse direction (Δχ2(df = 1) = 4.167, p = 0.041). Furthermore, time-lag length did not significantly moderate cross-construct coupling effects (Δχ2(df = 1) = 2.323, p = 0.127). Moreover, time-lag length differences (3 vs. 11 year) did not significantly moderate the change-to-future change cross-construct coupling effects between spatial cognition and LS (∆χ 2(df = 2) = 2.009, p = 0.366).

Table 3. Bivariate latent difference score models of spatial cognition and LS.

Abbreviations: CFI, confirmatory fit index; CI, confidence interval; df, degrees of freedom; LS, life satisfaction; RMSEA, root-mean-square error of approximation; Δ, change in a parameter estimate at one time lag.

* p < 0.05.

*** p < 0.001.

Life satisfaction and verbal WM

Table 4 demonstrates that the BLCS model testing within-person change-to-future relations between LS and verbal WM had good model fit (χ2(df = 40) = 87.780, p < 0.001, CFI = .962, RMSEA = .052). Within-person decrease in LS at a 3–10-year time lag was significantly related to decrement in verbal WM during the adjacent subsequent time lag (β = 1.637, 95% CI [0.680, 2.594], p = 0.001, d = 0.208). Likewise, within-person decline in verbal WM at a 3–10-year time lag was significantly associated with reduction in LS at the next successive time lag (β = 0.357, 95% CI [0.051, 0.664], p = 0.022, d = 0.142). In addition, the change-to-future change relation for LS predicting verbal WM was significantly stronger than the reverse (Δχ2(df = 1) = 4.153, p = 0.042). Furthermore, time-lag length differences (3 vs. 11 year) did not significantly moderate the change-to-future change cross-construct coupling effects between verbal WM and LS (∆χ 2(df = 2) = 2.195, p = 0.334).

Table 4. Bivariate latent difference score models of verbal WM and LS.

Abbreviations: CFI, confirmatory fit index; CI, confidence interval; df, degrees of freedom; LS, life satisfaction; RMSEA, root-mean-square error of approximation; VWM, verbal working memory; Δ, change in a parameter estimate at one time lag.

* p < 0.05.

** p < 0.01.

*** p < 0.001.

Life satisfaction and processing speed

Table 5 conveys that the BLCS model determining within-person change-to-future change associations between LS and processing speed had good model fit (χ2(df = 40) = 147.622, p < 0.001, CFI = .948, RMSEA = .072). Within persons, decline in LS at a prior 3–10-year time lag was significantly related to reduction in processing speed at the next time lag (β = 11.437, 95% CI [6.261, 16.613], p < 0.001, d = 0.354), and vice versa (β = 0.040, 95% CI [0.026, 0.054], p < 0.001, d = 0.269). Furthermore, the magnitude of change-to-future change relations was significantly stronger for LS predicting processing speed than conversely (Δχ2(df = 1) = 4.359, p = 0.037). In addition, time-lag length differences (3 vs. 11 year) did not significantly moderate the change-to-future change cross-construct coupling effects between processing speed and LS (∆χ 2(df = 2) = 1.409, p = 0.494).

Table 5. Bivariate latent difference score models of processing speed and LS.

Abbreviations: CFI, confirmatory fit index; CI, confidence interval; df, degrees of freedom; LS, life satisfaction; RMSEA, root-mean-square error of approximation; Δ, change in a parameter estimate at one time lag.

* p < 0.05.

*** p < 0.001.

Discussion

Consistent with the foregoing theories, findings showed that across five time points over 23 years, larger reduction in LS at a time lag was notably related to greater decline in spatial cognition, verbal WM, and processing speed at a future successive time lag. Simultaneously, partially supporting Hypotheses 1 and 2, a larger decrease in LS at a time lag was preceded and associated with greater diminished verbal WM and processing speed, but not spatial cognition. Small yet significant within-person, cross-lagged, change-to-future change relations emerged across time (|d| = 0.142–0.354). These within-person change-to-future change relations held over and above self-feedback loops, regression to the mean, between-person effects, and prior scores. We offer some theoretical accounts for this pattern of findings to contribute to the literature on aging, cognitive functioning, and subjective well-being.

Why did a reduction in LS at a time lag consistently forecast a worsening of verbal WM, spatial cognition, and processing speed at the next time lag? This finding may be accounted for by scar theories, which propose and show that reduced LS and related mental health issues (e.g., excessive worry) can, over time, lead to decreases in cognitive functioning via heightened allostatic load [Reference Fancourt and Steptoe21,Reference Ottaviani, Thayer, Verkuil, Lonigro, Medea and Couyoumdjian97]. This cascade of events may occur in the long term (e.g., 9–23 years) [Reference Zainal and Newman24,Reference Zainal and Newman25], plausibly via higher levels of markers of inflammatory activity (e.g., peripheral cytokines) and chronic stress (e.g., cortisol) in the bloodstream [Reference Zainal and Newman23,Reference Zainal and Newman98]. The continuing effect of decreased LS on allostatic load may alter cardiorespiratory and neurophysiological pathways in the amygdala and left precuneus, ventromedial prefrontal cortex, and striatum brain regions over long durations [Reference Eckstrand, Forbes, Bertocci, Chase, Greenberg and Lockovich99,Reference Kong, Ding, Yang, Dang, Hu and Song100]. Importantly, these areas have been identified as essential for executive functioning, optimal reward processing, and emotion modulation [Reference Waldinger, Kensinger and Schulz101]. Future longitudinal basic science studies can evaluate the strength of evidence for these propositions.

Simultaneously, what factors may account for decreases in processing speed and verbal WM preceding and predicting a decline in LS? Findings are concordant with theorists who propose the importance of processing speed [Reference Birren and Schaie102,Reference Salthouse103] and WM [Reference Baddeley104] resources to fulfill goals and tasks to create a sense of gratification across development (satisfaction-of-goals theory) [Reference Toh and Yang49]. It is tenable that throughout life, these cognitive functioning domains promote higher levels of perceived control goal planning, execution, attainment, and related factors. Supporting these assertions, prior BLCS research showed that a decline in processing speed or WM coincided with the ability to perform activities of daily living [Reference Wang, Zhu, Li and Zhu105], as well as a rise in trait negative affect and depression severity [Reference Zainal and Newman7]. Subsequent cross-panel LCS mediation investigations with four or more assessment waves can test our proposed ideas.

Unexpectedly, change in spatial cognition was not related to future change in LS. This null finding might be due to the fact that the ability to mentally process and alter visual objects in real time as indexed by the DB and CR spatial cognition measures might not be as essential as WM and processing speed in everyday life. This conjecture awaits further empirical testing. In addition, the nonsignificant within-person change-to-future change in spatial cognition–LS connections herein were inconsistent with a prior OLS regression-based study of older adults [Reference Enkvist, Ekström and Elmståhl44], showing that between persons, higher spatial cognition predicted greater future LS. Differences in analytic data techniques (e.g., findings at the within-person level may not translate to the between-person level) [Reference Fisher, Medaglia and Jeronimus106], measures used, and sample attributes may contribute to any observed discrepancies in the literature. In addition, the effect of reduction in LS on future decline in spatial cognition, verbal WM, and processing speed was more substantial than in the opposite direction. Such findings might be attributed to how measures of cognitive functioning used herein might not necessarily reflect tasks of everyday living (e.g., house chores, grocery shopping, and balancing a checkbook) in community adults and, therefore, might not be as noticeable or bothersome [Reference Jaywant, Barredo, Ahern and Resnik107]. These results could also be explained by how LS markedly affects daily motivation, mood, work and social functioning, and health behaviors [Reference Dohle and Hofmann108,Reference Smyth, Zawadzki, Juth and Sciamanna109], factors that likely impacted various cognitive domains. Future empirical research work can test these possibilities.

The current study has some limitations. One limitation was the use of two spatial cognition tests, one processing speed test, and one WM test. Future research could clarify if other important cognitive function domains (e.g., verbal fluency) [Reference Zainal and Newman7,Reference Foong, Haron, Koris, Hamid and Ibrahim110]) would be related to LS with comprehensive multiple-item cognitive tests. Subsequent studies should also include subjective cognitive function measures since they may differ from performance-based ones and function as early warning signs of incident dementia [Reference Johansson, Björk and Thorvaldsson111]. Furthermore, our study included one time lag that was significantly longer than the others, which may have influenced our findings. However, we determined that the pattern of results did not differ substantially based on the time-lag length, and we used the least biased method of analyzing data with different lag lengths [Reference McArdle91]. Another possibility is that systematic attrition impacted our findings. Nonetheless, we used a gold standard data replacement strategy that accounts for systematic associations between study variables and missingness. In addition, the oral SDM test used herein tends to yield higher scores than written graphomotor forms [Reference Strober, Bruce, Arnett, Alschuler, Lebkuecher and Di Benedetto71]. However, given that the current study focused entirely on change in the same test over time, higher scores would likely be present at all time points and would not have affected our current findings. Future studies should use processing speed tests that comprise both oral and written components to obtain more reliable estimates of individuals’ processing speed abilities. In addition, the tests used herein had poor ecological validity because these tasks (e.g., BD) are rarely if at all, required in day-to-day living in the real world, thus highlighting the importance of using ecologically valid cognitive functioning measures (e.g., [Reference Schuster, Mermelstein and Hedeker112]) in future studies. Relatedly, unmeasured third variables (e.g., motivation, self-efficacy, perceived social connectedness, and positive affect) [Reference Abramovitch, Short and Schweiger113,Reference Liao and Weng114] should be considered. Finally, cognitive functioning tests, in particular, can be associated with practice effects, particularly across relatively shorter retest intervals of less than 2 years [Reference Bäckman, Herlitz, Robins-Wahlin, Wahlin and Winblad115Reference Rönnlund, Nyberg, Bäckman and Nilsson117]. However, we do not believe that practice effects explain our significant results for several reasons. First, our time lag length was 3–11 years, and at least one study found no cognitive improvement across three years [Reference Hultsch, Hertzog, Small, McDonald-Miszczak and Dixon116]. Second, our analyses examined the bidirectional relationship between waning LS and worsening cognitive functioning. If there were any impact of practice effects on cognitive functioning, this would mask (rather than enhance) cognitive functioning decline and likely diminish the bidirectional within-person association between reduced LS and worsening cognitive function. These shortcomings aside, study strengths include the well-powered sample size, study novelty, and use of multiple assessments to capture cognitive function that minimized measurement error. Furthermore, the current study utilized a suitable advanced SEM method that permits inferences of within-person change-to-future change relations to evaluate the preceding theories and advance literature empirically.

If the pattern of results herein is reproduced, the current study has some clinical implications. First, meditation- and mindfulness-based interventions have increasingly shown promise to enhance sustained attention, WM, spatial attention, and related cognitive function markers [118–120], or protect against their worsening decline across long durations in highly stressful situations [Reference Jha, Zanesco, Denkova, Morrison, Ramos and Chichester121,Reference Jha, Zanesco, Denkova, Rooks, Morrison and Stanley122]. In addition, lifestyle-based (e.g., cognitive-behavioral therapies, dancing, and yoga) [Reference Jazaieri, Goldin and Gross123,Reference Samaan, Diefenbacher, Schade, Dambacher, Pontow and Pakenham124] and cognitive function interventions (e.g., executive functioning or memory training, and reminiscence therapy) [125–128] have been shown to boost cognitive function or LS in adults. However, the state of research on this topic is nascent. Thus, conducting more gold standard randomized controlled trials can aid in drawing more definitive conclusions on their efficacy to enhance LS and cognitive function at the prevention and treatment stages across adulthood. In addition, based on emerging evidence [Reference Bruijniks, Meeter, Lemmens, Peeters, Cuijpers and Huibers129], clinical science can profit from future studies by testing if cognitive function serves as a treatment predictor, moderator, or mediator, to better understand mechanisms of change and optimize treatments.

Supplementary Materials

To view supplementary material for this article, please visit http://doi.org/10.1192/j.eurpsy.2022.19.

Data Availability Statement

The Swedish Adoption/Twin Study on Aging (SATSA) publicly available dataset used herein was obtained via the Inter-University Consortium of Political and Social Research (ICPSR) data repository website (https://www.icpsr.umich.edu/icpsrweb/NACDA/studies/3843).

Author Contributions

Conceptualization: N.H.Z.; Data curation: N.H.Z. and M.G.N.; Formal analysis: N.H.Z.; Methodology: N.H.Z.; Writing—original draft: N.H.Z.; Writing—review & editing: N.H.Z. and M.G.N.

Funding Statement

The Swedish Adoption/Twin Study on Aging study was supported by the following funding agencies and grants: John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, Research Network on Successful Aging, United States Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, National Institute on Aging (AG04563, AG10175, and AG08724), Swedish Research Council (825-2007-7460, 825-2009-6141, and 825-3011-6182), and Swedish Council for Working Life and Social Research (97:0147:1B and 2009-0795).

Ethical Standards

This study was performed in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki.

Conflicts of Interest

Both authors do not have conflicts of interest to disclose.

Acknowledgements

The original investigators and funding agency are not responsible for the analyses or interpretations presented here. We would like to thank Professor Peter C. M. Molenaar for offering statistical consultation during the process of conducting data analyses.

Footnotes

1 Participants diagnosed with dementia using the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-Third Edition [60, 61] were removed to understand the change-to-future change relations between life satisfaction and unique cognitive functioning domains in initially cognitively intact community adults. Nonetheless, a similar pattern of findings emerged when these participants were included.

2 See [71] for updated norms of this test.

3 Results of the analyses were similar with the unimputed dataset.

References

Cowan, N, Rouder, JN, Blume, CL, Saults, JS. Models of verbal working memory capacity: what does it take to make them work? Psychol Rev. 2012;119:480–99. doi:10.1037/a0027791.Google ScholarPubMed
Klencklen, G, Despres, O, Dufour, A. What do we know about aging and spatial cognition? Reviews and perspectives. Ageing Res Rev. 2012;11:123–35. doi:10.1016/j.arr.2011.10.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckert, MA. Slowing down: age-related neurobiological predictors of processing speed. Front Neurosci. 2011;5:25. doi:10.3389/fnins.2011.00025.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nigg, JT. On the relations among self-regulation, self-control, executive functioning, effortful control, cognitive control, impulsivity, risk-taking, and inhibition for developmental psychopathology. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2017;58:361–83. doi:10.1111/jcpp.12675.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zainal, NH, Newman, MG. Executive function and other cognitive deficits are distal risk factors of generalized anxiety disorder 9 years later. Psychol Med. 2018;48:2045–53. doi:10.1017/S0033291717003579.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Quinones, MM, Gallegos, AM, Lin, FV, Heffner, K. Dysregulation of inflammation, neurobiology, and cognitive function in PTSD: an integrative review. Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci. 2020;20:455–80. doi:10.3758/s13415-020-00782-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zainal, NH, Newman, MG. Depression and executive functioning bidirectionally impair one another across 9 years: evidence from within-person latent change and cross-lagged models. Eur Psychiatry. 2021;64:e43. doi:10.1192/j.eurpsy.2021.2217.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cook, NE, Braaten, EB, Surman, CBH. Clinical and functional correlates of processing speed in pediatric attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Child Neuropsychol. 2018;24:598–616. doi:10.1080/09297049.2017.1307952.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
van Dijk, DM, van Rhenen, W, Murre, JMJ, Verwijk, E. Cognitive functioning, sleep quality, and work performance in non-clinical burnout: the role of working memory. PLoS One. 2020;15:e0231906. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0231906.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Knight, MJ, Baune, BT. Executive function and spatial cognition mediate psychosocial dysfunction in major depressive disorder. Front Psych. 2018;9:539. doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2018.00539.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Salthouse, TA. Shared and unique influences on age-related cognitive change. Neuropsychology. 2017;31:11–9. doi:10.1037/neu0000330.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Groves, NB, Kofler, MJ, Wells, EL, Day, TN, Chan, ESM. An examination of relations among working memory, ADHD symptoms, and emotion regulation. J Abnorm Child Psychol. 2020;48:525–37. doi:10.1007/s10802-019-00612-8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fiocco, AJ, Yaffe, K. Defining successful aging: the importance of including cognitive function over time. Arch Neurol. 2010;67:876–80. doi:10.1001/archneurol.2010.130.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ratigan, A, Kritz-Silverstein, D, Barrett-Connor, E. Sex differences in the association of physical function and cognitive function with life satisfaction in older age: the rancho Bernardo study. Maturitas. 2016;89:2935. doi:10.1016/j.maturitas.2016.04.007.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Veenhoven, R. The overall satisfaction with life: subjective approaches (1). In: Glatzer, W, Camfield, L, Møller, V, Rojas, M, editors. Global handbook of quality of life: exploration of well-being of nations and continents. Dordrecht: Springer; 2015, p. 207–38. 10.1007/978-94-017-9178-6_9.Google Scholar
Hounkpatin, HO, Boyce, CJ, Dunn, G, Wood, AM. Modeling bivariate change in individual differences: prospective associations between personality and life satisfaction. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2018;115:e12–29. doi:10.1037/pspp0000161.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Johnson, MD, Neyer, FJ, Finn, C. Subjective well-being across partnerships. J Fam Psychol. 2021;35:546–51. doi:10.1037/fam0000793.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grant, N, Wardle, J, Steptoe, A. The relationship between life satisfaction and health behavior: a cross-cultural analysis of young adults. Int J Behav Med. 2009;16:259–68. doi:10.1007/s12529-009-9032-x.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kim, ES, Park, N, Sun, JK, Smith, J, Peterson, C. Life satisfaction and frequency of doctor visits. Psychosom Med. 2014;76:8693. doi:10.1097/PSY.0000000000000024.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baumann, M, Tchicaya, A, Lorentz, N, Le Bihan, E. Life satisfaction and longitudinal changes in physical activity, diabetes and obesity among patients with cardiovascular diseases. BMC Public Health. 2017;17:925. doi:10.1186/s12889-017-4925-0.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fancourt, D, Steptoe, A. The longitudinal relationship between changes in wellbeing and inflammatory markers: are associations independent of depression? Brain Behav Immun. 2020;83:146–52. doi:10.1016/j.bbi.2019.10.004.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Woo, J, Lehrer, HM, Whyne, E, Steinhardt, M. The longitudinal association of psychological resources with chronic conditions and the mediating roles of health behaviours and allostatic load. Psychol Health. 2020;35:629–43. doi:10.1080/08870446.2019.1656205.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zainal, NH, Newman, MG. Inflammation mediates depression and generalized anxiety symptoms predicting executive function impairment after 18 years. J Affect Disord. 2022;465–75. doi:10.1016/j.jad.2021.08.077.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zainal, NH, Newman, MG. Within-person increase in pathological worry predicts future depletion of unique executive functioning domains. Psychol Med. 2021;16761686. doi:10.1017/S0033291720000422.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zainal, NH, Newman, MG. Larger increase in trait negative affect is associated with greater future cognitive decline and vice versa across 23 years. Depress Anxiety. 2021;38:146–60. doi:10.1002/da.23093.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
D’Amico, D, Amestoy, ME, Fiocco, AJ. The association between allostatic load and cognitive function: a systematic and meta-analytic review. Psychoneuroendocrinology. 2020;121:104849. doi:10.1016/j.psyneuen.2020.104849.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hansson, I, Buratti, S, Thorvaldsson, V, Johansson, B, Berg, AI. Disentangling the mechanisms of retirement adjustment: determinants and consequences of subjective well-being. Work Aging Retire. 2020;6:7187. doi:10.1093/workar/waz021.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, RS, Boyle, PA, Segawa, E, Yu, L, Begeny, CT, Anagnos, SE, et al. The influence of cognitive decline on well-being in old age. Psychol Aging. 2013;28:304–13. doi:10.1037/a0031196.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Salthouse, TA. Correlates of cognitive change. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2014;143:1026–48. doi:10.1037/a0034847.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Allerhand, M, Gale, CR, Deary, IJ. The dynamic relationship between cognitive function and positive well-being in older people: a prospective study using the English longitudinal study of aging. Psychol Aging. 2014;29:306–18. doi:10.1037/a0036551.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ihle, A, Ghisletta, P, Gouveia, ÉR, Gouveia, BR, Oris, M, Maurer, J, et al. Lower executive functioning predicts steeper subsequent decline in well-being only in young-old but not old-old age. Int J Behav Dev. 2020;45:97108. doi:10.1177/0165025420937076.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miyake, A, Friedman, NP. The nature and organization of individual differences in executive functions. Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 2012;21:814. doi:10.1177/0963721411429458.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gerstorf, D, Lövdén, M, Röcke, C, Smith, J, Lindenberger, U. Well-being affects changes in perceptual speed in advanced old age: longitudinal evidence for a dynamic link. Dev Psychol. 2007;43:705–18. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.43.3.705.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baumeister, RF, Schmeichel, BJ, Vohs, KD. Self-regulation and the executive function: the self as controlling agent. In: Social psychology: handbook of basic principles. 2nd ed. New York: The Guilford Press; 2007, p. 516–39.Google Scholar
Diener, E, Suh, EM, Lucas, RE, Smith, HL. Subjective well-being: three decades of progress. Psychol Bull. 1999;125:276302. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.125.2.276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diamond, A. Executive functions. Annu Rev Psychol. 2013;64:135–68. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143750.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Diener, E, Oishi, S, Tay, L. Advances in subjective well-being research. Nat Hum Behav. 2018;2:253–60. doi:10.1038/s41562-018-0307-6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Biederman, J, Petty, CR, Fried, R, Doyle, AE, Spencer, T, Seidman, LJ, et al. Stability of executive function deficits into young adult years: a prospective longitudinal follow-up study of grown up males with ADHD. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 2007;116:129–36. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0447.2007.01008.x.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Swanson, HL, Fung, W. Working memory components and problem-solving accuracy: are there multiple pathways? J Educ Psychol. 2016;108:1153–77. doi:10.1037/edu0000116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hofmann, W, Schmeichel, BJ, Baddeley, AD. Executive functions and self-regulation. Trends Cogn Sci. 2012;16:174–80. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2012.01.006.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Comijs, HC, Dik, MG, Aartsen, MJ, Deeg, DJ, Jonker, C. The impact of change in cognitive functioning and cognitive decline on disability, well-being, and the use of healthcare services in older persons. Results of Longitudinal Aging Study Amsterdam. Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord. 2005;19:316–23. doi:10.1159/000084557.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rouch, I, Achour-Crawford, E, Roche, F, Castro-Lionard, C, Laurent, B, Ntougou Assoumou, G, et al. Seven-year predictors of self-rated health and life satisfaction in the elderly: the proof study. J Nutr Health Aging. 2014;18:840–7. doi:10.1007/s12603-014-0557-6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Siedlecki, KL, Yazdani, N, Minahan, J, Falzarano, F. Examining processing speed as a predictor of subjective well-being across age and time in the German aging survey. Aging Neuropsychol Cognit. 2020;27:6682. doi:10.1080/13825585.2019.1585514.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Enkvist, A, Ekström, H, Elmståhl, S. Associations between cognitive abilities and life satisfaction in the oldest-old. Results from the longitudinal population study good aging in Skåne. Clin Interv Aging. 2013;8:845–53. doi:10.2147/CIA.S45382.Google ScholarPubMed
Pe, ML, Koval, P, Kuppens, P. Executive well-being: updating of positive stimuli in working memory is associated with subjective well-being. Cognition. 2013;126:335–40. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2012.10.002.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hansson, I, Buratti, S, Thorvaldsson, V, Johansson, B, Berg, AI, Henkens, K. Changes in life satisfaction in the retirement transition: interaction effects of transition type and individual resources. Work Aging Retire. 2018;4:352–66. doi:10.1093/workar/wax025.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siedlecki, KL, Tucker-Drob, EM, Oishi, S, Salthouse, TA. Life satisfaction across adulthood: different determinants at different ages? J Posit Psychol. 2008;3:153–64. doi:10.1080/17439760701834602.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
St John, PD, Montgomery, PR. Cognitive impairment and life satisfaction in older adults. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2010;25:814–21. doi:10.1002/gps.2422.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Toh, WX, Yang, H. Executive function moderates the effect of reappraisal on life satisfaction: a latent variable analysis. Emotion. 2020; doi:10.1037/emo0000907.Google ScholarPubMed
Ghisletta, P, McArdle, JJ. Teacher’s corner: latent curve models and latent change score models estimated in R. Struct Equ Model. 2012;19:651–82. doi:10.1080/10705511.2012.713275.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hamaker, EL, Kuiper, RM, Grasman, RPPP. A critique of the cross-lagged panel model. Psychol Methods. 2015;20:102–16. doi:10.1037/a0038889.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zainal, NH, Newman, MG. Relation between cognitive and behavioral strategies and future change in common mental health problems across 18 years. J Abnorm Psychol. 2019;128:295304. doi:10.1037/abn0000428.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McArdle, JJ, Grimm, KJ. Five steps in latent curve and latent change score modeling with longitudinal data. In: van Montfort, K, Oud, JHL, Satorra, A, editors. Longitudinal research with latent variables. Berlin–Heidelberg: Springer; 2010, p. 245–73. 10.1007/978-3-642-11760-2_8.Google Scholar
Usami, S, Hayes, T, McArdle, JJ. Inferring longitudinal relationships between variables: model selection between the latent change score and autoregressive cross-lagged factor models. Struct Equ Model. 2015;23:331–42. doi:10.1080/10705511.2015.1066680.Google Scholar
Klopack, ET, Wickrama, K. Modeling latent change score analysis and extensions in Mplus: a practical guide for researchers. Struct Equ Model. 2020;27:97110. doi:10.1080/10705511.2018.1562929.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cui, L, Hou, NN, Wu, HM, Zuo, X, Lian, YZ, Zhang, CN, et al. Prevalence of Alzheimer’s disease and Parkinson’s disease in China: an updated systematical analysis. Front Aging Neurosci. 2020;12:603854. doi:10.3389/fnagi.2020.603854.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harvey, SB, Deady, M, Wang, M-J, Mykletun, A, Butterworth, P, Christensen, H, et al. Is the prevalence of mental illness increasing in Australia? Evidence from national health surveys and administrative data, 2001–2014. Med J Aust. 2017;206:490–3. doi:10.5694/mja16.00295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martyr, A, Nelis, SM, Quinn, C, Wu, YT, Lamont, RA, Henderson, C, et al. Living well with dementia: a systematic review and correlational meta-analysis of factors associated with quality of life, well-being and life satisfaction in people with dementia. Psychol Med. 2018;48:2130–9. doi:10.1017/S0033291718000405.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wright, AGC, Woods, WC. Personalized models of psychopathology. Annu Rev Clin Psychol. 2020;16:4974. doi:10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-102419-125032.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders. 3rd rev. ed. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association; 1987.Google Scholar
Rizzuto, D, Feldman, AL, Karlsson, IK, Dahl Aslan, AK, Gatz, M, Pedersen, NL. Detection of dementia cases in two Swedish health registers: a validation study. J Alzheimers Dis. 2018;61:1301–10. doi:10.3233/JAD-170572.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Petkus, AJ, Reynolds, CA, Wetherell, JL, Kremen, WS, Gatz, M. Temporal dynamics of cognitive performance and anxiety across older adulthood. Psychol Aging. 2017;32:278–92. doi:10.1037/pag0000164.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wood, V, Wylie, ML, Sheafor, B. An analysis of a short self-report measure of life satisfaction: correlation with rater judgments. J Gerontol. 1969;24:465–9. doi:10.1093/geronj/24.4.465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, JR, Pedersen, NL, Stacey, C, McClearn, GE, Nesselroade, JR. Age differences in the etiology of the relationship between life satisfaction and self-rated health. J Aging Health. 1992;4:349–68. doi:10.1177/089826439200400302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehto, K, Karlsson, I, Lundholm, C, Pedersen, NL. Genetic risk for neuroticism predicts emotional health depending on childhood adversity. Psychol Med. 2019;49:260–7. doi:10.1017/S0033291718000715.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wechsler, D. Wechsler’s measurement and appraisal of adult intelligence. 5th ed. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins; 1972.Google Scholar
Brand, HJ, Pieterse, MJ, Frost, M. Reliability and validity of the Ohwaki–Kohs tactile block design test for the blind. Psychol Rep. 1986;58:375–80. doi:10.2466/pr0.1986.58.2.375.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Finkel, D, Reynolds, CA, McArdle, JJ, Pedersen, NL. Age changes in processing speed as a leading indicator of cognitive aging. Psychol Aging. 2007;22:558–68. doi:10.1037/0882-7974.22.3.558.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pahlen, S, Hamdi, NR, Dahl Aslan, AK, Horwitz, BN, Panizzon, MS, Petersen, I, et al. Age-moderation of genetic and environmental contributions to cognitive functioning in mid- and late-life for specific cognitive abilities. Intelligence. 2018;68:7081. doi:10.1016/j.intell.2017.12.004.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smith, A. Symbol digit modalities test. Los Angeles: Western Psychological Services; 1982.Google Scholar
Strober, LB, Bruce, JM, Arnett, PA, Alschuler, KN, Lebkuecher, A, Di Benedetto, M, et al. A new look at an old test: normative data of the symbol digit modalities test—Oral version. Mult Scler Relat Disord. 2020;43:102154. doi:10.1016/j.msard.2020.102154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, KW, Lee, YC, Yu, TY, Cheng, LJ, Chao, CY, Hsieh, CL. Test-retest reliability and convergent validity of the test of nonverbal intelligence-fourth edition in patients with schizophrenia. BMC Psychiatry. 2021;21:39. doi:10.1186/s12888-021-03041-4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Strober, L, DeLuca, J, Benedict, RHB, Jacobs, A, Cohen, JA, Chiaravalloti, N, et al. Symbol digit modalities test: a valid clinical trial endpoint for measuring cognition in multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler J. 2018;25:1781–90. doi:10.1177/1352458518808204.Google ScholarPubMed
Wechsler, D. Wechsler adult intelligence scale-fourth edition: technical and interpretative manual. San Antonio, TX: Pearson Assessment; 2008.Google Scholar
Hilbert, S, Nakagawa, TT, Puci, P, Zech, A, Bühner, M. The digit span backwards task. Eur J Psychol Assess. 2015;31:174–80. doi:10.1027/1015-5759/a000223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ryan, JJ, Townsend, JM, Kreiner, DS. Comparison of oral, written, and pointing responses to WAIS-IV digit span. Appl Neuropsychol Adult. 2014;21:94–7. doi:10.1080/09084282.2012.753076.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
R Core Team. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria, https://www.R-project.org/; 2020.Google Scholar
Revelle, W. psych: Procedures for personality and psychological research, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois, USA, https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=psych, Version = 2.1.6; 2021.Google Scholar
Bentler, PM. Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychol Bull. 1990;107:238–46. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.238.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Steiger, JH. Structural model evaluation and modification: an interval estimation approach. Multivar Behav Res. 1990;25:173–80. doi:10.1207/s15327906mbr2502_4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oberski, D. lavaan.survey: An R package for complex survey analysis of structural equation models. J Stat Softw. 2014;57:27. doi:10.18637/jss.v057.i01.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graham, JW. Missing data analysis: making it work in the real world. Annu Rev Psychol. 2009;60:549–76. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085530.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
MacDonald, SW, Stawski, RS. Chapter 2: methodological considerations for the study of adult development and aging. In Schaie, KW, Willis, SL, editors. Handbook of the psychology of aging. 8th ed. San Diego: Academic Press; 2016, p. 313. doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-411469-2.00001-7.Google Scholar
Lee, T, Shi, D. A comparison of full information maximum likelihood and multiple imputation in structural equation modeling with missing data. Psychol Methods. 2021;26:466–85. doi:10.1037/met0000381.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Madley-Dowd, P, Hughes, R, Tilling, K, Heron, J. The proportion of missing data should not be used to guide decisions on multiple imputation. J Clin Epidemiol. 2019;110:6373. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.02.016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Widaman, KF, Ferrer, E, Conger, RD. Factorial invariance within longitudinal structural equation models: measuring the same construct across time. Child Dev Perspect. 2010;4:10–8. doi:10.1111/j.1750-8606.2009.00110.x.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cheung, GW, Rensvold, RB. Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Struct Equ Model. 2002;9:233–55. doi:10.1207/s15328007sem0902_5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zainal, NH, Newman, MG, Hong, RY. Cross-cultural and gender invariance of transdiagnostic processes in the United States and Singapore. Assessment. 2021;28:485–502. doi:10.1177/1073191119869832.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grimm, KJ, Ram, N. Latent growth and dynamic structural equation models. Annu Rev Clin Psychol. 2018;14:5589. doi:10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-050817-084840.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Matusik, JG, Hollenbeck, JR, Mitchell, RL. Latent change score models for the study of development and dynamics in organizational research. Organ Res Methods. 2020;24:772801. doi:10.1177/1094428120963788.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McArdle, JJ. Latent variable modeling of differences and changes with longitudinal data. Annu Rev Psychol. 2009;60:577605. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163612.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sardeshmukh, SR, Vandenberg, RJ. Integrating moderation and mediation. Organ Res Methods. 2016;20:721–45. doi:10.1177/1094428115621609.Google Scholar
Ke, Z, Wang, L. Detecting individual differences in change: methods and comparisons. Struct Equ Model. 2014;22:382400. doi:10.1080/10705511.2014.936096.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, L, Yang, M. On interindividual differences in intraindividual changes. In: Emilio, F, Steven, MB, Kevin, JG, editors. Longitudinal multivariate psychology. Milton: Routledge; 2018, p. 166–88. 10.4324/9781315160542-9.Google Scholar
Dunlap, WP, Cortina, JM, Vaslow, JB, Burke, MJ. Meta-analysis of experiments with matched groups or repeated measures designs. Psychol Methods. 1996;1:170–7. doi:10.1037/1082-989x.1.2.170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, Z, Hamagami, F, Grimm, KJ, McArdle, JJ. Using R package RAMpath for tracing SEM path diagrams and conducting complex longitudinal data analysis. Struct Equ Model. 2015;22:132–47. doi:10.1080/10705511.2014.935257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ottaviani, C, Thayer, JF, Verkuil, B, Lonigro, A, Medea, B, Couyoumdjian, A, et al. Physiological concomitants of perseverative cognition: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychol Bull. 2016;142:231–59. doi:10.1037/bul0000036.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zainal, NH, Newman, MG. Depression and worry symptoms predict future executive functioning impairment via inflammation. Psychol Med. 2021:111. 10.1017/S0033291721000398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckstrand, KL, Forbes, EE, Bertocci, MA, Chase, HW, Greenberg, T, Lockovich, J, et al. Anhedonia reduction and the association between left ventral striatal reward response and 6-month improvement in life satisfaction among young adults. JAMA Psychiat. 2019;76:958–65. doi:10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2019.0864.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kong, F, Ding, K, Yang, Z, Dang, X, Hu, S, Song, Y, et al. Examining gray matter structures associated with individual differences in global life satisfaction in a large sample of young adults. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci. 2015;10:952–60. doi:10.1093/scan/nsu144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waldinger, RJ, Kensinger, EA, Schulz, MS. Neural activity, neural connectivity, and the processing of emotionally valenced information in older adults: links with life satisfaction. Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci. 2011;11:426–36. doi:10.3758/s13415-011-0039-9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Birren, JE, Schaie, KW. Handbook of the psychology of aging. 6th ed. United States of America, Academic Press; 2006.Google Scholar
Salthouse, TA. The processing-speed theory of adult age differences in cognition. Psychol Rev. 1996;103:403–28. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.103.3.403.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baddeley, A. Working memory and emotion: ruminations on a theory of depression. Rev Gen Psychol. 2013;17:20–7. doi:10.1037/a0030029.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, J, Zhu, WH, Li, YF, Zhu, WW. Temporal precedence of cognitive function and functional abilities: a latent difference score model of the Chinese community-dwelling elders. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2019;34:1892–9. doi:10.1002/gps.5206.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fisher, AJ, Medaglia, JD, Jeronimus, BF. Lack of group-to-individual generalizability is a threat to human subjects research. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2018;115:E6106–15. doi:10.1073/pnas.1711978115.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jaywant, A, Barredo, J, Ahern, DC, Resnik, L. Neuropsychological assessment without upper limb involvement: a systematic review of oral versions of the trail making test and symbol-digit modalities test. Neuropsychol Rehabil. 2018;28:1055–77. doi:10.1080/09602011.2016.1240699.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dohle, S, Hofmann, W. Consistency and balancing in everyday health behaviour: an ecological momentary assessment approach. Appl Psychol Health Well Being. 2019;11:148–69. doi:10.1111/aphw.12148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smyth, JM, Zawadzki, MJ, Juth, V, Sciamanna, CN. Global life satisfaction predicts ambulatory affect, stress, and cortisol in daily life in working adults. J Behav Med. 2017;40:320–31. doi:10.1007/s10865-016-9790-2.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Foong, HF, Haron, SA, Koris, R, Hamid, TA, Ibrahim, R. Relationship between financial well-being, life satisfaction, and cognitive function among low-income community-dwelling older adults: the moderating role of sex. Psychogeriatrics. 2021;21:586–95. doi:10.1111/psyg.12709.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Johansson, B, Björk, MP, Thorvaldsson, V. I rate my memory quite similar at age 40 and at age 70. GeroPsych. 2020;33:235–44. doi:10.1024/1662-9647/a000239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schuster, RM, Mermelstein, RJ, Hedeker, D. Acceptability and feasibility of a visual working memory task in an ecological momentary assessment paradigm. Psychol Assess. 2015;27:1463–70. doi:10.1037/pas0000138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abramovitch, A, Short, T, Schweiger, A. The C factor: Cognitive dysfunction as a transdiagnostic dimension in psychopathology. Clin Psychol Rev. 2021;86:102007. doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2021.102007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liao, KY, Weng, CY. Gratefulness and subjective well-being: social connectedness and presence of meaning as mediators. J Couns Psychol. 2018;65:383–93. doi:10.1037/cou0000271.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bäckman, LDHR, Herlitz, A, Robins-Wahlin, T-B, Wahlin, Å, Winblad, B. Verbal and nonverbal episodic memory performance in a 2-year longitudinal study of optimally healthy very old adults. J Men Health Aging. 1998;4:139–54.Google Scholar
Hultsch, DF, Hertzog, C, Small, BJ, McDonald-Miszczak, L, Dixon, RA. Short-term longitudinal change in cognitive performance in later life. Psychol Aging. 1992;7:571–84. doi:10.1037/0882-7974.7.4.571.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rönnlund, M, Nyberg, L, Bäckman, L, Nilsson, LG. Stability, growth, and decline in adult life span development of declarative memory: cross-sectional and longitudinal data from a population-based study. Psychol Aging. 2005;20:318. doi:10.1037/0882-7974.20.1.3.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
MacLean, KA, Ferrer, E, Aichele, SR, Bridwell, DA, Zanesco, AP, Jacobs, TL, et al. Intensive meditation training improves perceptual discrimination and sustained attention. Psychol Sci. 2010;21:829–39. doi:10.1177/0956797610371339.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shields, GS, Skwara, AC, King, BG, Zanesco, AP, Dhabhar, FS, Saron, CD. Deconstructing the effects of concentration meditation practice on interference control: the roles of controlled attention and inflammatory activity. Brain Behav Immun. 2020;89:256–67. doi:10.1016/j.bbi.2020.06.034.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zainal, NH, Newman, MG. Mindfulness enhances cognitive functioning: A meta-analysis of 111 randomized controlled trials. in preparation; doi:10.31234/osf.io/vzxw7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jha, AP, Zanesco, AP, Denkova, E, Morrison, AB, Ramos, N, Chichester, K, et al. Bolstering cognitive resilience via train-the-trainer delivery of mindfulness training in applied high-demand settings. Mindfulness. 2019;11:683–97. doi:10.1007/s12671-019-01284-7.Google Scholar
Jha, AP, Zanesco, AP, Denkova, E, Rooks, J, Morrison, AB, Stanley, EA. Comparing mindfulness and positivity trainings in high-demand cohorts. Cogn Ther Res. 2020;44:311–26. doi:10.1007/s10608-020-10076-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jazaieri, H, Goldin, PR, Gross, JJ. Treating social anxiety disorder with CBT: impact on emotion regulation and satisfaction with life. Cogn Ther Res. 2016;41:406–16. doi:10.1007/s10608-016-9762-4.Google Scholar
Samaan, M, Diefenbacher, A, Schade, C, Dambacher, C, Pontow, IM, Pakenham, K, et al. A clinical effectiveness trial comparing ACT and CBT for inpatients with depressive and mixed mental disorders. Psychother Res. 2021;31:355–68. doi:10.1080/10503307.2020.1802080.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shahidi, M, Mojtahed, A, Modabbernia, A, Mojtahed, M, Shafiabady, A, Delavar, A, et al. Laughter yoga versus group exercise program in elderly depressed women: a randomized controlled trial. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2011;26:322–7. doi:10.1002/gps.2545.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shatil, E, Mikulecka, J, Bellotti, F, Bures, V. Novel television-based cognitive training improves working memory and executive function. PLoS One. 2014;9:e101472. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0101472.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sok, S, Shin, E, Kim, S, Kim, M. Effects of cognitive/exercise dual-task program on the cognitive function, health status, depression, and life satisfaction of the elderly living in the community. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18:7848. doi:10.3390/ijerph18157848.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wu, LF, Koo, M. Randomized controlled trial of a six-week spiritual reminiscence intervention on hope, life satisfaction, and spiritual well-being in elderly with mild and moderate dementia. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2016;31:120–7. doi:10.1002/gps.4300.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bruijniks, SJE, Meeter, M, Lemmens, LHJM, Peeters, F, Cuijpers, P, Huibers, MJH. Temporal and specific pathways of change in cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) and interpersonal psychotherapy (IPT) for depression. Behav Res Ther. 2022;151:104010. doi:10.1016/j.brat.2021.104010.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Figure 0

Figure 1. Bivariate dual latent change score model of LS and cognitive function.Abbreviations: COG, global cognition; e, item-level residual error; LS, life satisfaction; T1, Time 1 (1987); T2, Time 2 (1990); T3, Time 3 (1993); T4, Time 4 (2004); T5, Time 5 (2007); α, between-person constant change; β, within-person proportional change (change in a variable predicting future change in itself); Δ, change in a variable; δ, within-person cross-domain coupling effect (change in a variable predicting future change in another variable); λ, factor loading.

Figure 1

Table 1. Longitudinal measurement invariance of the four-factor model of LS and cognition.

Figure 2

Table 2. Univariate latent change score models of each variable.

Figure 3

Table 3. Bivariate latent difference score models of spatial cognition and LS.

Figure 4

Table 4. Bivariate latent difference score models of verbal WM and LS.

Figure 5

Table 5. Bivariate latent difference score models of processing speed and LS.

Supplementary material: File

Zainal and Newman supplementary material

Zainal and Newman supplementary material

Download Zainal and Newman supplementary material(File)
File 83 KB
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.