7. Data
*nationally representative
*physical, cognitive,
emotional, social functioning
*face‐to‐face and medical interviews,
written questionnaires
8. Data
*first cohort in 1992/1993: n=3107
*follow‐up every approximately
3 years
9. Data
Longitudinal trajectories of functioning
1992/93 1995/96 1998/99 2001/02 2004/05 2007/08
Our study sample
Total baseline sample: 3107
At least 1 follow‐up: 2545
At least 8 of 9 indicators of SA: 2185
Complete data on SEP: 2095
13. Latent Class Growth Analysis
*Calculates individual trajectories over time
*Identifies homogeneous subpopulations (classes)
with similar trajectories
*Missing data: Full Information Maximum Likelihood
*Separately for men and women
23. SEP and separate indicators of SA
Cognitive Functioning
Functional Limitations
Emotional Support Given
Subjective Health
Depressive Symptoms
Instrumental Support Given
Social Loneliness
Satisfaction with Life
Social Activity
24. SEP and separate indicators of SA
Cognitive Functioning
Functional Limitations
Emotional Support Given
Subjective Health
Depressive Symptoms
Instrumental Support Given
Satisfaction with Life
Social Loneliness
Social Activity
1.16 1.77 1.07
1.05 1.67 1.04
1.10 1.68 1.03
1.50 1.03
1.68
1.05
1.05
(Odds Ratios)
25. Conclusions
SEP
*Each indicator of SEP independently and positively associated with
a holistic and longitudinal measurement of Successful Aging
*SEP indicators partly represent different causal mechanisms that influence
different and multiple aspects of functioning in old age
* Inequalities in the composite measure likely to mostly reflect inequalities
in physical and cognitive functioning, and to a lesser extent psychosocial
aspects of functioning
26. Plans for the near future: resilience
aims:
‐ to identify a subgroup of older adults with low SEP but high
scores on the SA‐index
‐ to find explanations for them aging successfully ‘against all odds’
29. Correlations among the Successful Aging Index‐score, elements of SEP, and nine separate indicators included in the SA‐Index1)
SA
1
Edu
2
Occ
3
Inc
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
1 Successful Aging Index‐score
2 Education in years .23*
3 Occupational skill level .19* .57*
4 Income .24* .51* .43*
5 Age ‐.43* ‐.13* ‐.04 ‐.20*
6 Sex (1=female, 0=male) ‐.14* ‐.24* ‐.34* ‐.27* .02
7 SA: Functional limitations .61* .17* .13* .20* ‐.42* ‐.15*
8 SA: Subjective health .51* .10* .13* .12* ‐.06* ‐.11* .34*
9 SA: Cognitive functioning .50* .29* .21* .26* ‐.40* ‐.10* .32* .05*
10 SA: Depressive symptoms .60* .10* .10* .11* ‐.16* ‐.12* .29* .34* .16*
11 SA: Satisfaction with life .40* .05* .05* .08* ‐.02 ‐.10* .12* .22* .03 .29*
12 SA: Social loneliness .49* ‐.00 .01 .03 ‐.14* .00 .12* .10* .09* .27* .17*
13 SA: Emotional support given .53* .17* .12* .15* ‐.18* ‐.02 .15* .08* .22* .11* .08* .27*
14 SA: Instrumental support given .54* .12* .06* .13* ‐.35* ‐.12* .25* .09* .20* .17* .08* .21* .35*
15 SA: Social Activity .34* ‐.02 .01 ‐.01 ‐.13* .06* .09* .06* .09* .09* .06* .06* .11* .06*
1) * = significant at the p<.05‐level (2‐tailed). Variables 7‐15 are dichotomous, where 1 expresses most successful latent class membership
30. TABLE 5: Associations between education, occupation, and income and individual Intercept (I) and Slope (S)
values for nine indicators of successful aginga)
Functional
limitations
Subjective
health
Cognitive
functioning
Depressive
symptoms
Satisfaction
with Life
I S I S I S I S I S
Education in years .04 .01 .06 .01* ‐.06 .00
Occupational skill level
Ref = elementary
Low .76* .11* .40* .06* ‐1.23* ‐.01
Medium .83* .12* .55* .09* ‐1.46* .01
High .59 .12 .43* .08* ‐1.06* ‐.01
Never had a job .26 .16* ‐.12 ‐.02 ‐1.12* ‐.01
Income (per 100 euro) .04* .01* .00* .03* .00* ‐.03 .00
Social
loneliness
Emotional
support given
Instrumental
support given
Social
activity
I S I S I S I S
Education in years ‐.00 .18* ‐.00* .08* ‐.00* ‐.03
Occupational skill level
Ref = elementary
Low .03 1.02* .05 .28
Medium ‐.03 1.17* .02 .46* ‐.01*
High .06 .87 ‐.32 .53*
Never had a job ‐.01 .96* .27 .40
Income (log) ‐.00 .06* ‐.00* .02 ‐.01
a) Reported are b‐coefficients. For slopes only significant associations (p<.05 two‐tailed) are reported. Models
are adjusted for age, gender and all SEP elements
* significant at p<.05‐level (two‐tailed)
