Latent structure of cognitive performance in the adult children study

Abstract

Objective The Adult Children Study (ACS) at the Knight Alzheimer’s Disease Research Center is a longitudinal investigation designed to identify and validate potential biomarkers of preclinical Alzheimer’s disease (AD) in cognitively normal individuals with and without a family history of AD. The purpose of the current study was to validate the proposed latent structure of the ACS psychometric battery. Method Confirmatory factor analyses of baseline data in a sample of 229 (75 men) cognitively normal middle-aged to older adult individuals assessed a hypothesized 4-factor model of cognitive performance. Measurement invariance was investigated as a function of family history of AD and APOE status. Results This study confirmed a priori hypotheses of 4 latent cognitive domains in a unique longitudinal sample of cognitively normal adults. In addition, there was evidence of a similar factor structure for family history and APOE status groups. Conclusion These robust indicators of a broad range of cognitive domains will be used in future investigations to track the influence of family history of AD on cognitive performance over time. In addition, associations with fluid, structural, and molecular biomarkers of preclinical AD will be further examined, both cross-sectionally and longitudinally in this sample.

Cognitive Functioning of Unaffected First-degree Relatives of Individuals With Late-onset Alzheimer's Disease: A Systematic Literature Review and Meta-analysis

“…Two-sided Grubb’s tests did not identify any statistically significant outlier in group mean age distribution for first-degree relatives ( G = 3.07, p = 0.428) or controls ( G = 3.52, p = 0.079). As indicated in Table S3, only 4 studies (Berti et al, 2011 ; Head et al, 2017 ; Jonaitis et al, 2015 ; Rice et al, 2003 ) documented the exact age ranges for first-degree relatives and controls. Out of 34, 13 (38.24%) studies (Abulafia et al, 2017 , 2019a , b ; Fleisher et al, 2005 ; Green & Levey, 1999 ; Johnson et al, 2006 , 2018 ; La Rue et al, 2008 ; Mason et al, 2017 ; Rajah et al, 2017 ; Ravona-Springer et al, 2020 ; Sanchez et al, 2017 ; Sanchez-Benavides et al, 2016 ) included only middle-aged individuals (40–65 years), 12 (35.29%) studies (Aschenbrenner et al, 2016 ; Bassett et al, 2006 ; Berti et al, 2011 ; Debette et al, 2009 ; Fladby et al, 2017 ; Hazlett et al, 2015 ; Head et al, 2017 ; La Rue et al, 1996 ; Miller et al, 2005 ; Rice et al, 2003 ; Smith et al, 2010 ; Yassa et al, 2008 ) intermixed middle-aged and older (> 65 years) adults, four (11.76%) studies (Donix et al, 2010 ; Jonaitis et al, 2015 ; Mosconi et al, 2011 , 2012 ) intermixed young (< 40 years), middle-aged, and older participants, one (2.94%) study intermixed young and middle-aged individuals (Del Cerro et al, 2020 ), and four (11.76%) studies (Bendlin et al, 2010 ; La Rue et al, 1995 ; Smith et al, 2002 , 2005 ) did not provide sufficient information (no age ranges specified) to ascertain the probable age category of the participants (see Table S3 notes for details).…”

“…The systematic review yielded 26 cross-sectional (Abulafia et al, 2017 , 2019a , b ; Aschenbrenner et al, 2016 ; Bassett et al, 2006 ; Bendlin et al, 2010 ; Berti et al, 2011 ; Del Cerro et al, 2020 ; Donix et al, 2010 ; Fladby et al, 2017 ; Fleisher et al, 2005 ; Hazlett et al, 2015 ; Head et al, 2017 ; Johnson et al, 2006 ; La Rue et al, 1995 , 1996 , 2008 ; Mason et al, 2017 ; Mosconi et al, 2011 ; Rajah et al, 2017 ; Ravona-Springer et al, 2020 ; Rice et al, 2003 ; Sanchez et al, 2017 ; Smith et al, 2002 , 2010 ; Yassa et al, 2008 ), two case–control (Green & Levey, 1999 ; Mosconi et al, 2012 ), and six prospective cohort (Debette et al, 2009 ; Johnson et al, 2018 ; Jonaitis et al, 2015 ; Miller et al, 2005 ; Sanchez-Benavides et al, 2016 ; Smith et al, 2005 ) studies. In the Supplementary Online Content, Tables S5, S6, and S7 summarize the results regarding the assessment of risk of bias for each included study according to the respective research design.…”