Cited by 155Aging and Gerontology ResearchCognitive Abilities and TestingDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 91 of the 91 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 6 of the 48 sources its claims cite were checked for support.

Cohort differences in cognitive aging and terminal decline in the Seattle Longitudinal Study.

Open access
Gerstorf, Denis, Ram, Nilam, Hoppmann, Christiane, Willis, Sherry L., Schaie, K. Warner·2011·Developmental Psychology

Abstract

Life span researchers have long been interested in how and why fundamental aspects of human ontogeny differ between cohorts of people who have lived through different historical epochs. When examined at the same age, later born cohorts are often cognitively and physically fitter than earlier born cohorts. Less is known, however, about cohort differences in the rate of cognitive aging and if, at the very end of life, pervasive mortality-related processes overshadow and minimize cohort differences. We used data on 5 primary mental abilities from the Seattle Longitudinal Study (Schaie, 2005) to compare both age-related and mortality-related changes between earlier born cohorts (1886-1913) and later born cohorts (1914-1948). Our models covary for several individual and cohort differences in central indicators of life expectancy, education, health, and gender. Age-related growth models corroborate and extend earlier findings by documenting level differences at age 70 of up to 0.50 SD and less steep rates of cognitive aging on all abilities between 50 and 80 years of age favoring the later born cohort. In contrast, mortality-related models provide limited support for positive cohort differences. The later born cohort showed steeper mortality-related declines. We discuss possible reasons why often reported positive secular trends in age-related processes may not generalize to the vulnerable segment of the population that is close to death and suggest routes for further inquiry.

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

In the Seattle Longitudinal Study, later-born cohorts (1914–1948) had higher cognitive levels at age 70 and shallower age-related declines from 50 to 80 than earlier-born cohorts (1886–1913), but these advantages largely did not extend to terminal decline. In mortality-related models, positive cohort differences appeared only for verbal meaning, while later-born participants showed steeper terminal declines on four of five abilities.

Key findings

  • Age-related growth models showed later-born cohorts outperformed earlier-born cohorts at age 70 by up to 0.50 SD on four of five primary mental abilities, with cohort intercept differences ranging from 2.353 for fluency to 5.818 for reasoning; number ability was the exception.
  • Later-born cohorts also had shallower linear age-related declines on all five abilities, with effects ranging from 0.060 for number to 0.231 for verbal meaning, and less pronounced concave curvature on reasoning, number, and verbal meaning.
  • Mortality-related models provided limited support for positive cohort differences: later-born participants outperformed earlier-born participants at 3 years before death only on verbal meaning (γ07 = 2.660), with no significant cohort differences for spatial orientation, inductive reasoning, or word fluency.
  • Later-born participants scored 0.465 SD lower on number ability at 3 years before death and experienced steeper linear terminal decline on four of five abilities, with effect sizes from 0.247 for spatial orientation to 0.446 for number ability; they also showed greater convex curvature on all five abilities.

Methods

  • Data came from the Seattle Longitudinal Study, a cohort-sequential panel launched in 1956 with eight waves at 7-year intervals through 2005 (49 years). The analyzed subsample compared participants born 1886–1913 with those born 1914–1948; age models used N = 1,980 and terminal-decline models used N = 891.
  • Cognitive outcomes were five Thurstone Primary Mental Abilities subtests—spatial orientation, inductive reasoning, word fluency, number, and verbal meaning—scaled to T scores (M = 50, SD = 10).
  • Multilevel growth curve models estimated linear and quadratic change over age (centered at 70) and time to death (centered at 3 years before death), with cohort and covariates including education, circulatory disease, cancer, gender, and, for mortality models, age at study entry and age at death; models were fit with SAS Proc Mixed.

Limitations

  • The paper states that the SLS sample was recruited through one large HMO in the Pacific Northwest, was community-dwelling and approximately represented the upper 75% of the socioeconomic spectrum, and may not be equally representative of the cohorts; the later-born terminal subsample died at younger ages and may have been less healthy, and covariates may only partially capture selectivity.
  • The paper also states that terminal models had lower statistical power, fewer participants and observations, no more than five age-model and four mortality-model data points per person, 7-year measurement intervals that may miss accelerations, and quadratic models that may poorly approximate terminal decline as a phase transition; the study was descriptive rather than causal, lacked direct data on qualitative education, modeled health as ever-diagnosed rather than severity or decline, and examined only the cognitive domain.
  • Evident from the text: age and mortality models were based on different, only partly overlapping subsamples and were not directly compared, so age-related and terminal-decline findings are not within the same analytic sample.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/a0023426

Cites

91 of 91 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

6 of 48 cited sources checked · 1 supported · 0 flagged · accuracy not yet measured

  • Probably not a substantial claim. 41
  • It may state two separate claims as one. 24
57 of 57
  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    Incomplete longitudinal data were missing at random.

    “under the assumption that incomplete data were missing at random (Little & Rubin, 1987; McArdle, 1994).”
  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    Period or time-of-measurement effects can be ignored.

    “Making the simplifying assumption of ignoring period or time-of-measurement effects (for discussion, see Schaie & Herzog, 1983)”
2 of 2

Statistics recomputed

Every reported test result, recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom. A result shows as not adding up only once an independent check has confirmed it.

  • ConsistentF(1, 5346) = 122.7reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(1, 5346) = 122.70, p < .001”

  • ConsistentF(1, 2509) = 7.56reported p < .01 · recomputed p = .006

    “F(1, 2509) = 7.56, p < .01”

2 of 2

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Birth-year range changes from 1886 to 1883

    Minor

    The methods define the earliest included birth year as 1886, but the discussion describes the analyzed individuals as born as early as 1883.

  • Number ability is said to lack positive cohort effects despite a positive rate effect

    Minor

    The discussion says number ability showed no evidence of positive cohort effects. The results report a significant positive cohort difference in its rate of cognitive aging, favoring the later-born cohort.

2 of 2

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 84 references

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. Elder GH Jr. Children of the Great Depression: Social change in life experience 1974 University of Chicago Press Chicago, IL
  2. Flynn JR What is intelligence? 2007 Cambridge University Press Cambridge, England
  3. Kleemeier RW Intellectual changes in the senium Proceedings of the American Statistical Association 1962 1 290 295
  4. Ram N Gerstorf D Fauth B Zarit SH Malmberg B Aging, disablement, and dying: Three time metrics for charting late-life change Research in Human Development 2010 7 27 44 PMC3482431 23112747
  5. Schaie KW Charness N Impact of technology on the aging individual 2003 Springer New York, NY

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 155

Metadata

Authors
Gerstorf, D., Ram, N., Hoppmann, C., Willis, S. L., & Schaie, K. W.
Affiliations
  • Pennsylvania State University (US)
  • University of British Columbia (CA)
  • University of Washington (US)
Venue
Developmental Psychology
Published
2011
Volume
47
Issue
4
Pages
1026-1041
ISSN
  • 0012-1649 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-0599
OpenAlex
W2096560961
Cited by
154
References
84
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 5
FWCI
9.07
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Developmental Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institute on Aging (RC1-AG035645, R21-AG032379, R21-AG033109)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Aging and Gerontology Research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Dementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Keywords
cohort differences, cognitive aging, terminal decline, Seattle Longitudinal Study, primary mental abilities, secular trends, life expectancy, older adults, birth cohort
MeSH terms
Age Factors, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Aging, Cognition, Cognition Disorders, Female, Humans, Life Expectancy, Longitudinal Studies, Male, Middle Aged, Neuropsychological Tests, Spatial Behavior, Time Factors, Washington, Cohort Studies

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-11-03, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-11-03 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review