Methodological Issues

Presenter: K. Warner Schaie, PhD

This presentation focuses on the paradigm shift that has occurred over the 20th century. This includes interdisciplinary approaches. There is a 6-decade review of longitudinal studies that addresses shifts in methodological paradigms. Much of this has been documented in the various editions of the Handbook of the Psychology of Agingopens in new window in the history chapters. American psychology of aging begins with World War I intelligence testing and cross-sectional testing, G. Stanley Hall’s book, Senecense; Cowdry’s Problems of Aging and Birren’s Handbook of Aging and the Individual, as well as the creation of Div. 20 (previously called Maturity and Old Age) and the Journal of Gerontology.

Methodological advances include: (1) cross-sectional studies and age differences and longitudinal studies and age changes, (2) confirmatory Factor Analysis-observed variables and latent constructs, (3) single variables to multiple constructs, variance of performance and everyday problem solving, (4) chronological age as dependent variable–Joachim Wohlwill and (5) multi-method and modeling-growth curved as opposed to group averages.

There are increasing interdisciplinary approaches to geropsychology. Examples include: Structural and Functional MRI, looking at age changes and brain changes. There is a convergence of different disciplines. Assessments have become more important. Development is studied in the context of changing environments and hereditary factors.

Early influences can impact middle age and later age, relating to the role of longitudinal studies in geropsychology—early childhood studies followed into adulthood. Studies were extended across the lifespan that were tested earlier. In the 1960s, Schaie began studies that led to short-term longitudinal studies. He found maintenance of function with only small change to 70s and little decline to 80s. Individuals with advanced education decline more slowly.

Aging processes were studied across the entire lifespan, relating to the importance of understanding the mechanisms that led to change. Cross-sectional studies will be replaced by longitudinal studies with interventions. The field needs identification of mechanisms that underlie development.

K. Warner Schaie’s Presentationopens in new window (PDF, 617KB)

Presenter: Sara J. Czaja, PhD

This presentation focuses on methodological issues associated with behavioral intervention research and draws upon nineteen years of Center for Research and Education on Aging and Technology Enhancement (CREATE) studies. It also reviews domains of behavioral intervention research lessons learned.

Case examples are presented from: (1) the PRISM study using computer system designed for older adults, (2) video Care Project — psychosocial intervention via phone and (3) caring for the Caregiver Network — intervention to improve health and wellbeing of individuals and families.

Czaja discusses interventions to improve cognition, medication adherence and care coordination. Behavioral interventions work and include nonpharmacological approaches. This research focuses on the movement from clinical settings to the home with increased reliance on family members.

Evidence-based practices are interventions that are tested and evaluated. An Institute of Medicine report indicates a seventeen-year gap in research to evidence-based practice. This is a gap in what we do and what we know. Implementation science looks at barriers and facilitators.

Challenges presented by behavioral intervention research include: (1) bar for evidence is increasing, (2) behavioral and health problems are complex, (3) effortful, time consuming and expensive, (4) most problems require a multidisciplinary approach, as health and demographic landscapes are becoming more complex. Another issue is what kind of control group is needed. This is difficult with nonpharmacological or behavioral intervention.

Intervention inclusion aspects: (1) content of treatment, (2) treatment dosage-number of sessions (how long?), (3) where? (4) delivery approach and (5) staffing requirement.

For caregiver research: (1) what should session focus on? (2) what computer tablet to use and control content? (3) need for bilingual approach, (4) how long intervention should be, (5) inclusion and exclusion criteria and (6) feasibility.

Other issues addressed include recruitment and retention, engagement and buy-in from community, use of advisory committee to find hard to locate individuals, internet speed and connectivity and monitoring and tracking data. Use of different languages is expensive. The future of behavioral intervention issues include: that health care will become more complex, the use of technology for assessment, access, security, data management and the timeliness of evidence. There is a need to institute trial designs to narrow the seventeen-year gap. Ultimately, the challenge is to design good studies that can be implemented.

Sara J. Czaja’s Presentationopens in new window (PDF, 1MB)

Presenter: Gregory Smith, PhD

This presentation is from the perspective of an intervention researcher focused on how to develop conceptual research. This research focuses on custodial grandparents — grandparents raising grandchildren. There are one million such families in the U.S.

Why should we be interested? Parenting is a central responsibility. Focus is on the wellbeing of grandparents. From a parenting perspective, there is an elevated risk for grandparents and grandchildren. This situation comes from intergenerational cycles of early life adversity.

The perspective taken is the Family Stress Model of Rand et. al., and focuses on financial strain, reduced quality parenting practice, stressors, outcome in children and stresses for caregiver and care recipient. There are 733 custodial grandmothers in this study. Research is looking at caregiving and subjective wellbeing. How do grandmothers appraise the situation as negative and positive?

The conceptual approach is a blend of Perlin and Family Stress Model — coping resources, active coping and passive coping. Measurement and structural components have been invariant. Outcomes are described as measures of poor coping versus distress. Results are used for implication of intervention.

Positive Parenting Program is the intervention. Major methodological challenges include:

1. Direction of causality. Drawing on M. Powell Lawton, we may say, “The best way to understand something is to try to change it.”
2. Collecting and using data from multiple individuals, multiple informants and how to treat it. The alternative approach is to treat each informant as a distinct construct.
3. Systemic issues, including subtle changes in response formats that can make a difference.

The second example is a project to evaluate intervention: Translational Developmental Science. Focus on change in social relationships and review of research approach to be used in next study, including a look at intervention process, qualitative approaches and social outcomes and costs.

Gregory Smith’s Presentationopens in new window (PDF, 823 KB)