9 Cross-cultural comparison of cognitive functioning as a predictor of disability in older adults in an Indian and U.S. Sample
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: There is a well-established relationship in the literature between cognitive impairment and functional disability, such that, increased cognitive impairment is associated with diminished capacity to perform daily activities independently. However, there has been limited research on the relationship between cognitive impairment and daily functioning in older adults from an Indian population, or differences between Indian and U.S samples. The relationship may differ across these two populations due to their unique cultures. For example, India and the United States have significantly different social systems and family structures, with different emphases placed on the community as compared to the individual. Therefore, the role that older adults play or the support they receive within the family and society differs between the two countries and could significantly impact the relationship between cognitive ability and functional disability. The primary objective of this study is to further explore the similarities and differences in this relationship across cross-cultural populations. We hypothesized that individuals across both samples with lower cognitive functioning will have increased disability. Furthermore, we propose that the relationship between cognitive functioning and functional disability will be stronger in the U.S sample as compared to the Indian sample. Participants and Methods: Community-dwelling older adults were sampled through local senior centers and by convenience sampling in the United State and India, respectively (N = 40 and 36, respectively). All participants were administered the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) to evaluate cognitive ability. Functional status was assessed using the Activities of Daily Living section of the OARS multidimensional functional questionnaire and the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS). Results: A significant association between cognitive functioning and functional disability was demonstrated in the combined sample, i.e., the MoCA was correlated with OARS (r[70] = .42, p < .001) and the WHODAS (r[59] = -.32, p = .009). However, when comparing samples, significant differences in associations between the MoCA and functional measures were noted in the Indian and U.S. samples: In the Indian sample, the MoCA was not significantly correlated with either the WHODAS (r[38] = -.28, p = .09) or the OARS (r[39] = .17, p = .31). Comparatively, in the United States, the MoCA was correlated with the OARS (r[32] = .51, p = .002) and the WHODAS (r[26] = -.40, p = .04). Conclusions: These results, in keeping with most previous studies done in the U.S. point to a robust relationship between cognition and functional disability in the U.S sample. However, this association is substantially diminished in the Indian sample. One possible reason maybe, greater support available to older Indians may mitigate the negative effect of cognitive impairment on adaptive function. A major limitation of this study is the small sample size. Additionally, due to vast cultural differences that exist across India, the sample collected from an urban well-education population will likely not generalize to the larger country. Future research from larger and more diverse samples across the country will likely provide more valuable insight.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".