44 Cognitive Intraindividual Variability as a Predictor of Functional Outcomes in a Sample of Precariously Housed Individuals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Precariously housed individuals are exposed to multiple adverse factors negatively impacting neurocognitive functioning. Additionally, this population is subjected to poor life outcomes, such as impaired psychosocial functioning. Neurocognitive functioning plays an important role in psychosocial functioning and may be especially critical for precariously housed individuals who face numerous barriers in their daily lives. However, few studies have explicitly examined the cognitive determinants of functional outcomes in this population. Cognitive intraindividual variability (IIV) involves the study of within-person differences in neurocognitive functioning and has been used as marker of frontal system pathology. Increased IIV has been associated with worse cognitive performance, cognitive decline, and poorer everyday functioning. Hence, IIV may add to the predictive utility of commonly used neuropsychological measures and may serve as an emergent predictor of poor outcomes in at-risk populations. The objective of the current study was to examine IIV as a unique index of the neurocognitive contributions to functional outcomes within a large sample of precariously housed individuals. It was hypothesized that greater IIV would be associated with poorer current (i.e., baseline) and long-term (i.e., up to 12 years) psychosocial functioning. Participants and Methods: Four hundred and thirty-seven adults were recruited from single-room occupancy hotels located in the Downtown Eastside of Vancouver, Canada (Mage = 44 years, 78% male) between November 2008 and November 2021. Baseline neurocognitive functioning was assessed at study enrolment. Scores from the Social and Occupational Functioning Assessment Scale (SOFAS), the Role Functioning Scale (RFS), the physical component score (PCS) and the mental component score (MCS) of the 36-Item Short Form Survey Instrument were obtained at participants’ baseline assessments and at their last available follow-up assessment to represent baseline and long-term psychosocial functioning, respectively. Using an established formula, an index of IIV was derived using a battery of standardized tests that broadly assessed verbal learning and memory, sustained attention, mental flexibility, and cognitive control. A series of multiple linear regressions were conducted to predict baseline and long-term social and role functioning (average across SOFAS and RFS scores), and PCS and MCS scores from IIV. In each of the models, we also included common predictors of functioning, including a global cognitive composite score, age, and years of education. Results: The IIV index and the global composite score did not explain a significant proportion of the variance in baseline and long-term social and role functioning (p > .05). However, IIV was a significant predictor of baseline (B = -3.84, p = .021) and long-term (B = -3.58, p = .037) PCS scores, but not MCS scores (p > .05). The global composite score did not predict baseline or long-term PCS scores. Conclusions: IIV significantly predicted baseline and long-term physical functioning, but not mental functioning or social and role functioning, suggesting that IIV may be a sensitive marker for limitations in everyday functioning due to physical health problems in precariously housed individuals. Critically, the present study is the first to show that IIV may be a useful index for predicting poor long-term health-related outcomes in this population compared to traditional neuropsychological measures.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".