Analysis reveals cross-sectional studies may misrepresent individual ageing rates, suggesting narrower cohort studies are preferable.
BACKGROUND: Cross-sectional studies of samples varying widely in age have found moderate to high levels of shared age-related variance among measures of cognitive and physiological capabilities, leading researchers to posit common factors or common causal influences for diverse age-related phenomenon. OBJECTIVE: The influence of population average changes with age on cross-sectional estimates of association has not been widely appreciated in developmental and ageing research. Covariances among age-related variables in cross-sectional studies are highly confounded in regards to inferences about associations among rates of change within individuals since covariances can result from a number of sources including average population age-related differences (fixed age effects) in addition to initial individual differences and individual differences in rates of ageing (random age effects). Analysis of narrow age-cohort samples may provide a superior analytical basis for testing hypotheses regarding associations between rates of change in cross-sectional studies. CONCLUSIONS: The use of age-heterogeneous cross-sectional designs for evaluating interdependence of ageing-related processes is discouraged since associations will not necessarily reflect individual-level correlated rates of change. Typical cross-sectional studies do not provide sufficient evidence for the interdependence of ageing-related changes and should not serve as the basis for theories and hypotheses of ageing. Reanalyzing existing cross-sectional studies using a sequential narrow-age cohort approach provides a useful alternative for evaluating associations between ageing-related changes. Longitudinal designs, however, provide a much stronger basis for inference regarding associations between rates of ageing within individuals.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hofer et al. (2001) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: