性别差异对参与者日常功能的影响。

IF 1.4 4区 心理学 Q4 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY Applied Neuropsychology-Adult Pub Date : 2024-06-06 DOI:10.1080/23279095.2024.2362744
Lisa V Graves, Zachary Conaway, Mathilde Weberg, Jennifer Lozano, Elizabeth Mercer, Maiya Larry, Lorraine Vergonia
{"title":"性别差异对参与者日常功能的影响。","authors":"Lisa V Graves, Zachary Conaway, Mathilde Weberg, Jennifer Lozano, Elizabeth Mercer, Maiya Larry, Lorraine Vergonia","doi":"10.1080/23279095.2024.2362744","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Functional assessment in neurocognitive evaluation is often provided via informant reports. These subjective reports can vary based on the characteristics of informants and their relationships with participants, such as informant sex. However, whether informant sex intersects with participant sex to impact subjective ratings of participants' daily functioning, and whether such effects mirror observed patterns in neuropsychological performance, has not been adequately examined with ethnoracially diverse samples. We examined differences among participant-informant sex-based dyads on subjective informant reports of participants' daily functioning (assessed via the Functional Activities Questionnaire [FAQ]), and whether any observed differences on reported functioning corresponded to differences in objective participant performance on neuropsychological performance, among middle-aged and older Hispanic/Latino (n = 543), non-Hispanic Black (NHB; n = 1030), and non-Hispanic White (NHW; n = 5356) adults in the National Alzheimer's Coordinating Center cohort (n = 6929). Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) tests revealed significant dyad differences on FAQ scores in the NHB (<i>p</i><.001) and NHW subsamples (<i>p</i><.05), but not in the Hispanic/Latino subsample (<i>p</i>>.05). For the Hispanic/Latino and NHB subsamples, ANCOVA tests revealed no significant effects of dyad on neuropsychological performance (<i>p</i>s>.01), whereas for the NHW subsample, ANCOVA tests revealed significant dyad differences on performance in multiple cognitive domains (<i>p</i>s<.01). Nevertheless, the pattern of dyad differences on neuropsychological performance did not mirror the pattern of observed differences on FAQ scores in the NHW subsample. Findings and their implications, including potential contributions of other informant characteristics on observed dyad differences on reported functioning, are discussed.</p>","PeriodicalId":51308,"journal":{"name":"Applied Neuropsychology-Adult","volume":" ","pages":"1-9"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Sex-based dyad differences on informant reports of participants' daily functioning.\",\"authors\":\"Lisa V Graves, Zachary Conaway, Mathilde Weberg, Jennifer Lozano, Elizabeth Mercer, Maiya Larry, Lorraine Vergonia\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/23279095.2024.2362744\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Functional assessment in neurocognitive evaluation is often provided via informant reports. These subjective reports can vary based on the characteristics of informants and their relationships with participants, such as informant sex. However, whether informant sex intersects with participant sex to impact subjective ratings of participants' daily functioning, and whether such effects mirror observed patterns in neuropsychological performance, has not been adequately examined with ethnoracially diverse samples. We examined differences among participant-informant sex-based dyads on subjective informant reports of participants' daily functioning (assessed via the Functional Activities Questionnaire [FAQ]), and whether any observed differences on reported functioning corresponded to differences in objective participant performance on neuropsychological performance, among middle-aged and older Hispanic/Latino (n = 543), non-Hispanic Black (NHB; n = 1030), and non-Hispanic White (NHW; n = 5356) adults in the National Alzheimer's Coordinating Center cohort (n = 6929). Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) tests revealed significant dyad differences on FAQ scores in the NHB (<i>p</i><.001) and NHW subsamples (<i>p</i><.05), but not in the Hispanic/Latino subsample (<i>p</i>>.05). For the Hispanic/Latino and NHB subsamples, ANCOVA tests revealed no significant effects of dyad on neuropsychological performance (<i>p</i>s>.01), whereas for the NHW subsample, ANCOVA tests revealed significant dyad differences on performance in multiple cognitive domains (<i>p</i>s<.01). Nevertheless, the pattern of dyad differences on neuropsychological performance did not mirror the pattern of observed differences on FAQ scores in the NHW subsample. Findings and their implications, including potential contributions of other informant characteristics on observed dyad differences on reported functioning, are discussed.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51308,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Applied Neuropsychology-Adult\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1-9\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Applied Neuropsychology-Adult\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/23279095.2024.2362744\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Applied Neuropsychology-Adult","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/23279095.2024.2362744","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

神经认知评估中的功能评估通常是通过信息提供者的报告进行的。这些主观报告可能会因信息提供者的特征及其与参与者的关系(如信息提供者的性别)而有所不同。然而,信息提供者的性别与参与者的性别是否会交叉影响对参与者日常功能的主观评价,以及这种影响是否反映了所观察到的神经心理学表现模式,这些问题还没有在不同种族的样本中得到充分研究。我们研究了中老年西班牙裔/拉美裔(n = 543)、非西班牙裔黑人(NHB;n = 1030)和非西班牙裔白人(NHW;n = 5356)成年人的神经心理学客观表现。协方差分析(ANCOVA)检验显示,NHB 在常见问题得分上存在显著的双亲差异(ppp>.05)。在西班牙裔/拉美裔和 NHB 子样本中,方差分析测试显示,配对关系对神经心理学表现没有显著影响(ps>.01),而在 NHW 子样本中,方差分析测试显示,配对关系对多个认知领域的表现有显著差异(ps
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Sex-based dyad differences on informant reports of participants' daily functioning.

Functional assessment in neurocognitive evaluation is often provided via informant reports. These subjective reports can vary based on the characteristics of informants and their relationships with participants, such as informant sex. However, whether informant sex intersects with participant sex to impact subjective ratings of participants' daily functioning, and whether such effects mirror observed patterns in neuropsychological performance, has not been adequately examined with ethnoracially diverse samples. We examined differences among participant-informant sex-based dyads on subjective informant reports of participants' daily functioning (assessed via the Functional Activities Questionnaire [FAQ]), and whether any observed differences on reported functioning corresponded to differences in objective participant performance on neuropsychological performance, among middle-aged and older Hispanic/Latino (n = 543), non-Hispanic Black (NHB; n = 1030), and non-Hispanic White (NHW; n = 5356) adults in the National Alzheimer's Coordinating Center cohort (n = 6929). Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) tests revealed significant dyad differences on FAQ scores in the NHB (p<.001) and NHW subsamples (p<.05), but not in the Hispanic/Latino subsample (p>.05). For the Hispanic/Latino and NHB subsamples, ANCOVA tests revealed no significant effects of dyad on neuropsychological performance (ps>.01), whereas for the NHW subsample, ANCOVA tests revealed significant dyad differences on performance in multiple cognitive domains (ps<.01). Nevertheless, the pattern of dyad differences on neuropsychological performance did not mirror the pattern of observed differences on FAQ scores in the NHW subsample. Findings and their implications, including potential contributions of other informant characteristics on observed dyad differences on reported functioning, are discussed.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Applied Neuropsychology-Adult
Applied Neuropsychology-Adult CLINICAL NEUROLOGY-PSYCHOLOGY
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
11.80%
发文量
134
期刊介绍: pplied Neuropsychology-Adult publishes clinical neuropsychological articles concerning assessment, brain functioning and neuroimaging, neuropsychological treatment, and rehabilitation in adults. Full-length articles and brief communications are included. Case studies of adult patients carefully assessing the nature, course, or treatment of clinical neuropsychological dysfunctions in the context of scientific literature, are suitable. Review manuscripts addressing critical issues are encouraged. Preference is given to papers of clinical relevance to others in the field. All submitted manuscripts are subject to initial appraisal by the Editor-in-Chief, and, if found suitable for further considerations are peer reviewed by independent, anonymous expert referees. All peer review is single-blind and submission is online via ScholarOne Manuscripts.
期刊最新文献
Once is enough! An analogue study on repeated validity assessment in adults with ADHD. Validation of the Addenbrooke's Cognitive Examination-III for detecting vascular dementia in Iranian patients with stroke: A secondary data analysis. Are there predictable neuropsychological impairments in persons with functional movement disorder? Associations between ADHD symptoms, executive function and frontal EEG in college students. Characteristics of cerebellar cognitive affective syndrome in patients with acute cerebellar stroke and its impact on outcome.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1