| HOME | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|---|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RESEARCH ARTICLE |
1 Max Planck Institute for Human Development, Berlin, Germany.
2 Department of Psychiatry, Free University, Berlin, Germany.
3 Medical School, Humboldt University, Berlin, Germany.
Address correspondence to Jacqui Smith or Paul Baltes, Center for Lifespan Psychology, Institute for Human Development, Lentzeallee 94, 14195 Berlin, Germany. E-mail: Smith{at}mpib-berlin.mpg.de or baltes{at}mpib-berlin.mpg.de
 |
Abstract |
|---|
 TOP Abstract Longitudinal Design of BASE:...Characteristics of the 4-Year...References |
|---|
The Berlin Aging Study (BASE) was established in 1989 to investigate questions about the young-old and oldest old adults from the joint and collaborative perspectives of four disciplines: psychiatry, psychology, sociology, and internal medicine (Baltes & Mayer, 1999; Baltes, Mayer, Helmchen, & Steinhagen-Thiessen, 1993; Mayer & Baltes, 1996). Extensive information about the baseline design, sample selectivity, assessment procedures, and cross-sectional findings from BASE are reported in Baltes and Mayer (1999)(see also Baltes & Smith, 1997; Lindenberger et al., 1999; Mayer & Baltes, 1996).
This article introduces a collection of articles describing findings from a longitudinal follow-up of the core BASE sample 4 years after baseline assessment. We provide background information about the longitudinal BASE design, its strengths and limits, and the demographic characteristics of the 4-year longitudinal sample (N = 206). Each article in the present collection elaborates this information in the context of specific research questions and domains of functioning. Lindenberger, Singer, and Baltes (2002), for example, report findings on the selectivity of the 4-year sample and discuss the theoretical implications of experimental- and mortality-based attrition. Changes in two areas of self-regulation, control beliefs and possible selves, and their relation to health and well-being are described by Kunzmann, Little, and Smith (2002) and Smith and Freund (2002). The consequences over time of individual differences and social inequalities in resources for adaptive everyday functioning and social participation are the focus of articles by Lang, Rieckmann, and Baltes (2002) and Bukov, Maas, and Lampert (2002). Although this collection is limited to research derived primarily from the psychology and sociology groups in BASE, each report also makes reference to the functional implications of physical and mental health.
|
Longitudinal Design of BASE: Strengths and Limits |
|---|
|
TOPAbstractLongitudinal Design of BASE:...Characteristics of the 4-Year...References |
|---|
The first important feature of BASE is that the study was designed initially to allow comparisons between individuals in the third (young-old) and fourth (oldest old) age. The goal at baseline was to achieve an Age x Sex stratified heterogeneous (locally representative) sample of individuals aged 70 to 100+ years. Research resources permitted the intensive study of about 500 persons (14 multidisciplinary 90-min sessions per individual participant). With this focus, BASE responded to the argument that much gerontological research is based on relatively "young" samples of those aged 60 to 80 (e.g., Baltes, 1997; Suzman, Willis, & Manton, 1992). The core baseline cross-sectional sample, recruited and tested from 1990 to 1993, consisted of 516 men and women (n = 258 aged 70–84 years and n = 258 aged 85–103 years) from the western districts of Berlin. For age-related comparisons, the sample was divided into six age groups/cohorts (each n = 86): 70–74 years (born 1922–1915), 75–79 years (1917–1910), 80–84 years (1913–1905), 85–89 years (1908–1900), 90–94 years (1902–1896), and 95–103 years (1897–1883).
A second strength is that BASE involved a broadly based multi- and interdisciplinary assessment. The baseline cross-sectional assessment protocol involved fourteen 90-min individual testing sessions (over 3–5 months) in which approximately 10,000 variables (at all levels of aggregation) were collected from each participant. This assessment protocol included details of personal life history and current life contexts, findings from noninvasive medical and dental examinations, blood and saliva parameters, clinical assessment of mental health and everyday competence, as well as assessment of psychological functioning in three domains, intelligence, personality, and social relationships.
Because of the intensity and range of this assessment protocol and the age groups investigated, we expected a high drop-out rate for the complete baseline assessment package (14 sessions including medical examinations). Therefore we set as a high priority the examination not only of response rates but also of selectivity issues (e.g., sample selectivity, experimental- and mortality-related selectivity; for details, see Baltes & Mayer, 1999; Baltes & Smith, 1997; Lindenberger et al., 1999; Nuthmann & Wahl, 1996). Data collected during the recruitment phase, microcensus material, and city registry mortality information have been used to examine these different aspects of selectivity.
The study commenced with a verified parent sample of 1908 obtained from the city registry. Demographic information was available for this entire sample. Subsequently, we continue to obtain information about address changes and mortality for this parent sample. Our goal was to enlist approximately 500 people from this parent sample for the 14-session intensive assessment protocol. Random assignment was not possible because of lack of volunteering, because of health-related inability to participate in the full protocol, and for ethical reasons. Four hundred seventeen of the 1,908 participants in the parent sample (22%) volunteered no additional data beyond the registry information. In this context, then, the basic participation rate for the first measurement point in the study was 78% (N = 1,491). After direct face-to-face clinical observations, and for ethical and health-related reasons, we excluded 227 people (12%) from participating further in the study (90% of this group were older than age 85). In addition to the 516 individuals (27% of the parent sample) who completed the entire 14-session intensive protocol, 412 people (21%) participated at the level of a single 90-min multidisciplinary assessment, and 336 (18%) participated at the level of a single 30-min interview. Information from each of these subgroups of the parent sample has been used to examine selectivity (see Baltes & Smith, 1997; Lindenberger et al., 1999). The selectivity analyses indicated that the core BASE sample of 516 was positively selected in terms of mean-level functioning (effect sizes were small) and subsequent mortality. There was no strong evidence, however, for selectivity effects regarding individual heterogeneity and intervariable covariation.
The longitudinal follow-up of BASE participants has taken two main routes. First, survivors of the 516 (Time 1; T1) core sample have been recontacted on two occasions: In 1993–1994 (Time 2; T2), 361 participated in an interim follow-up (90-min intake interview), and in 1995–1996 (Time 3; T3), 206 completed a repeat of the multidisciplinary Intensive Protocol (reduced to 6 sessions). Data collection at T3 involved an average of 3.7 months for each participant (range = 1.2–14.6 months). The six sessions included a repeat of the psychological battery (intellectual functioning, personality, and social relationships), clinical examinations of physical and mental health, and reassessments of everyday competence, current social and finanical status, and social participation. Figure 1 summarizes the frequency distribution of participants in the six age/cohort groups of the original BASE design tested at these three occasions. As one can see, the stratified (balanced) age distribution of the 516 participants at the first measurement occasion was not maintained in the longitudinal follow-ups. Stratification by sex has remained relatively stable: At T3, for example, 101 men and 105 women participated.
|
There are several limits to the longitudinal findings reported in the present collection. First and foremost, findings are restricted to two measurement points and so provide only minimal information about robust change and intraindividual variability (e.g., Rogosa, 1995). Second, the average 4-year time interval between assessment allows an extremely limited window on processes of change. For some adaptation and change processes, this interval may be too long and for others too short. Furthermore, this time interval contributed to age-specific attrition and selectivity effects, especially because it was longer than the average expected years to live for the oldest old adults assessed at baseline. Finally, the articles describe but a small selection of the constructs that have been measured over time in BASE.
|
Characteristics of the 4-Year Longitudinal BASE Sample |
|---|
|
TOPAbstractLongitudinal Design of BASE:...Characteristics of the 4-Year...References |
|---|
|
|
Acknowledgments |
|---|
Received for publication July 31, 2001. Accepted for publication July 27, 2002.
|
References |
|---|
|
TOPAbstractLongitudinal Design of BASE:...Characteristics of the 4-Year...References |
|---|
This article has been cited by other articles:
 |
|
 |
|
  A. Kleinspehn-Ammerlahn, D. Kotter-Gruhn, and J. Smith Self-Perceptions of Aging: Do Subjective Age and Satisfaction With Aging Change During Old Age? J. Gerontol. B. Psychol. Sci. Soc. Sci., November 1, 2008; 63(6): P377 - P385. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
C. A. Hoppmann, D. Gerstorf, J. Smith, and P. L. Klumb Linking Possible Selves and Behavior: Do Domain-Specific Hopes and Fears Translate Into Daily Activities in Very Old Age? J. Gerontol. B. Psychol. Sci. Soc. Sci., March 1, 2007; 62(2): P104 - P111. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 A. B. Zonderman Predicting Alzheimer's Disease in the Baltimore Longitudinal Study of Aging J Geriatr Psychiatry Neurol, December 1, 2005; 18(4): 192 - 195. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. M. Isaacowitz and J. Smith Positive and Negative Affect in Very Old Age J. Gerontol. B. Psychol. Sci. Soc. Sci., May 1, 2003; 58(3): P143 - 152. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
U. Kunzmann, T. Little, and J. Smith Perceiving Control: A Double-Edged Sword in Old Age J. Gerontol. B. Psychol. Sci. Soc. Sci., November 1, 2002; 57(6): P484 - 491. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. Smith and A. M. Freund The Dynamics of Possible Selves in Old Age J. Gerontol. B. Psychol. Sci. Soc. Sci., November 1, 2002; 57(6): P492 - 500. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
F. R. Lang, N. Rieckmann, and M. M. Baltes Adapting to Aging Losses: Do Resources Facilitate Strategies of Selection, Compensation, and Optimization in Everyday Functioning? J. Gerontol. B. Psychol. Sci. Soc. Sci., November 1, 2002; 57(6): P501 - 509. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. Bukov, I. Maas, and T. Lampert Social Participation in Very Old Age: Cross-Sectional and Longitudinal Findings From BASE J. Gerontol. B. Psychol. Sci. Soc. Sci., November 1, 2002; 57(6): P510 - 517. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|---|
