Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 182

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Nonresponse Pattern and Bias in a Community-based Cross-sectional Study of Cognitive Functioning among the Elderly

Launer, Lenore J., Wind, Annet W., Deeg, Dorly J. H.·1994·American Journal of Epidemiology

Abstract

The demographic, health, and mental functioning characteristics of nonresponders to a community-based cross-sectional study of cognitive functioning among the elderly in Amsterdam, the Netherlands (Amsterdam Study of the Elderly (AMSTEL), October 1990 to May 1991), were examined and compared with responders. The randomly selected age-stratified (65-74, 75-84 years) sample was drawn from nonresponders listed with a subsample (n = 8) of general practitioners whose lists served as the sampling frame for the main study. The general practitioners approached and interviewed the responding nonresponders using the same standardized questions that were used in the main study. Nonresponders (n = 115) and responders (n = 999) from the same medical practices were compared by means of chi-square and odds ratios. Compared with responders, these nonresponders more often reported a history of psychiatric illness, heart attack, stroke, and diabetes, and were more likely to be unmarried, to have a lower education, and to do poorly on the cognitive test (odds ratio = 1.6, 95% confidence interval 1.0-2.6). Most significant physical and mental health differences by response status were seen among the persons aged < 75 years and not among those aged > or = 75 years. The odds for poor cognitive test performance associated with age and stroke were relatively more biased than those associated with other risk factors. These results suggest that the characteristics of young-old and old-old elderly nonresponders to cross-sectional studies of cognitive function may differ, and that there may be selective nonresponse that could bias, to a different degree, estimates of risk for poor cognitive functioning. Studies should investigate the possibilities for nonresponse in their own setting.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a117077

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

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

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 182

Metadata

Authors
Launer, L. J., Wind, A. W., & Deeg, D. J. H.
Venue
American Journal of Epidemiology
Published
1994-04-15
Volume
139
Issue
8
Pages
803-812
ISSN
  • 0002-9262 (ISSN-L)
  • 1476-6256
OpenAlex
W1960732844
Cited by
182
References
0
FWCI
31.39
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Nonresponse Pattern and Bias in a Community-based Cross-sectional Study of Cognitive Functioning among the Elderly. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a117077
The paper
Launer, L. J., Wind, A. W., & Deeg, D. J. H. (1994). Nonresponse Pattern and Bias in a Community-based Cross-sectional Study of Cognitive Functioning among the Elderly. American Journal of Epidemiology. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a117077

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.