Cited by 19Multiple Sclerosis Research StudiesDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes

Cognitive Reserve Attenuates the Effect of Disability on Depression in Multiple Sclerosis

Cadden, Margaret H, Guty, Erin T, Arnett, Peter A·2019·Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The current study explored the moderating role of cognitive reserve on the relationship between disability and depression in a sample of individuals in which brain pathology is thought to contribute to depression (multiple sclerosis; MS). METHOD: Fifty-four individuals with MS were examined. Depression was measured using the Beck Depression Inventory-Fast Screen (BDI-FS). In addition to collecting demographic (education) and disease burden (Expanded Disability Status Scale; EDSS) related variables, participants completed a neuropsychological test battery and psychosocial questionnaires. Cognitive reserve (CR) was conceptualized in two ways: Fixed CR and Malleable CR. Fixed CR was measured using years of education and crystallized intelligence (Shipley Vocabulary). Malleable CR was operationalized as a composite of measures from the Cognitive Heath Questionnaire (CHQ). Two regressions on depression (BDI-FS) examining either type of cognitive reserve, EDSS, and their interactions were explored. Results: The interaction between EDSS and both conceptualizations of cognitive reserve were significant, t(50) = -2.60, p = .013, PRE = .12 (Fixed CR); t(47) = -2.02, p = .049, PRE = .08 (Malleable CR). Simple effects testing revealed the same pattern regardless of the type of cognitive reserve examined; EDSS predicted depression only in those with low cognitive reserve. CONCLUSIONS: Cognitive reserve moderates the relationship between disability and depression in MS; disability does not appear to influence depression in those with high cognitive reserve.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/arclin/acy067

Cites

36 of 36 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Cadden, M. H., Guty, E. T., & Arnett, P. A.
Affiliations
Pennsylvania State University (US)
Corresponding author
Cadden, Margaret H
Venue
Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology
Published
2018-06
Volume
34
Issue
4
Pages
495-502
ISSN
  • 0887-6177 (ISSN-L)
  • 1873-5843
OpenAlex
W2888899428
Cited by
19
References
35
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 2
FWCI
0.76
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National MS Society (PP1829)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pathology and Forensic Medicine › Multiple Sclerosis Research Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Dementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Keywords
cognitive reserve, multiple sclerosis, depression, disability, Expanded Disability Status Scale, crystallized intelligence, moderating effect, neuropathology
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Depression, Disability Evaluation, Female, Persons with Disabilities, Disabled Persons, Humans, Intelligence, Male, Middle Aged, Multiple Sclerosis, Neuropsychological Tests, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Surveys and Questionnaires, Cognitive Reserve

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.

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