Author
Listed:
- Meagan T FarrellPhD
- Lindsay C KobayashiPhD
- Livia MontanaPhD
- Ryan G WagnerPhD
- Nele DemeyerePhD
- Lisa BerkmanPhD
- Angela GutchessPhD
Abstract
ObjectivesDirection and magnitude of gender differences in late-life cognitive function are inextricably tied to sociocultural context. Our study evaluates education and literacy as primary drivers of gender equality in cognitive performance among middle-aged and older adults in rural South Africa.MethodData were collected on 1,938 participants aged 40–79 from Agincourt, South Africa. Cognitive function was measured via the Oxford Cognitive Screen-Plus, a tablet-based assessment with low literacy demands. Four cognitive domains were derived through confirmatory factor analysis: episodic memory, executive function, visual spatial, and language. Structural equation models tested domain-specific gender effects, incrementally controlling for demographic, education, health, and socioeconomic variables.ResultsIn the model adjusting only for demographic factors, men outperformed women on executive function and visual-spatial domains. Adding education and literacy to the model revealed a robust female advantage in episodic memory, and reduced the magnitude of male advantage in executive function and visual and spatial by 47% and 42%, respectively. Health and socioeconomic factors did not alter patterns of gender associations in subsequent models.DiscussionIn this older South African cohort, gender inequality in cognitive performance was partially attributable to educational differences. Understanding biopsychosocial mechanisms that promote cognitive resilience in older women is critically important given the predominantly female composition of aging populations worldwide.
Suggested Citation
Meagan T FarrellPhD & Lindsay C KobayashiPhD & Livia MontanaPhD & Ryan G WagnerPhD & Nele DemeyerePhD & Lisa BerkmanPhD & Angela GutchessPhD, 2020.
"Disparity in Educational Attainment Partially Explains Cognitive Gender Differences in Older Rural South Africans,"
The Journals of Gerontology: Series B, The Gerontological Society of America, vol. 75(7), pages 161-173.
Handle:
RePEc:oup:geronb:v:75:y:2020:i:7:p:e161-e173.
Download full text from publisher
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:geronb:v:75:y:2020:i:7:p:e161-e173.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/psychsocgerontology .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.