Back

Midlife Measures of General Cognitive Performance in the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health (Add Health)

Aiello, A. E.; Rob, F. I.; Gross, A. L.; Bennett, D. A.; Manly, J. J.; Plassman, B. L.; Momkus, J.; Tanner, K. T.

2026-06-22 epidemiology
10.64898/2026.06.18.26355806 medRxiv
Show abstract

Objective: The Add Health Cognitive Assessment, Physical, and Sensory Function Protocol (Add CAPS) was developed to assess cognitive, physical, and sensory function in early midlife in a nationally representative sample in the United States. Using Add CAPS, we developed two general cognitive performance measures. Methods: The sample included 2,525 participants from Add Health Wave VI who completed an in- home assessment of cognitive performance. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to derive two general cognitive performance (GCP) scores: (1) a five-domain score based on originally designed cognitive domains (Add CAPS GCP), and (2) a modified score aligned with the Harmonized Cognitive Assessment Protocol (HCAP) framework (Add CAPS GCP-H). We evaluated model fit using Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA), Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR), and Comparative Fit Index (CFI) and tested factor scores for criterion validity. Results: Both models showed good fit (Add CAPS GCP: RMSEA = 0.025, SRMR = 0.031, CFI = 0.968; Add CAPS GCP-H: RMSEA = 0.027, SRMR = 0.033, CFI = 0.962), indicating that they adequately represent the underlying GCP construct. Discussion: The Add CAPS cognitive battery captures a robust, hierarchical structure of GCP across alternative domain specifications. The derived factor scores provide a valuable method for characterizing a person's cognitive baseline during midlife. Importantly, the Add CAPS GCP-H enhances comparability with the HCAP network, supporting cross-cohort analyses of cognitive aging.

Matching journals

The top 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.