Search results

ACTIVE (Advanced Cognitive Training for Independent and Vital Elderly) was a multisite randomized controlled trial conducted at six field sites with New England Research Institutes (NERI) as the coordinating center. The field sites included the University of Alabama at Birmingham, Hebrew Senior Life (formerly Hebrew Rehabilitation Center for the Aged) in Boston, Indiana University, Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Pennsylvania State University, and Wayne State University (Detroit). Data in this study are drawn from measures of cognitively demanding daily activities performed by participants who received a variety of cognitive interventions. Measures included both cognitive functioning (memory, inductive reasoning, speed processing, and general knowledge) and daily functioning (everyday problem solving, observations of daily living, complex reaction time, and general functional ability). Secondary to these measures, the study also includes data on health care and service utilization, driving habits, and mobility. Data were collected at the start of the study (baseline) as well as one, two, three, five, and ten years into the study.

This collection integrates data from two previous collections (ICPSR 4248 and ICPSR 36036) and fills in gaps that existed in these two collections. In addition, this collection features composite scores for constructs like memory, reasoning speed, Short Form Health Survey (SF-36), Social Determinants of Health (SDOH), as well as data from the National Death Index and state driving records.

Please read the collection notes for important analysis details.

These data are part of NACJD's Fast Track Release and are distributed as they there received from the data depositor. The files have been zipped by NACJD for release, but not checked or processed except of the removal of direct identifiers. Users should refer to the accompany readme file for a brief description of the files available with this collections and consult the investigator(s) if further information is needed.

This study evaluated the cost effectiveness of the Los Angeles Elder Abuse Forensic Center (EAFC) by examining costs associated elder abuse cases processed under a multidisciplinary team approach. Using data collected in Evaluating the Elder Abuse Forensic Center Model in Los Angeles County, California, 2007-2009 (ICPSR 34979) researchers focused on the key components, participants, and processes necessary to operate the Los Angeles EAFC and identified the costs required to process an elder abuse case as well as the outcomes attained by the EAFC. This study also carried out a survey of Adult Protective Service (APS) social workers on time spent on different case process activity and their perception on efficiency of the Los Angeles EAFC, and collected associated costs estimates.

These data are part of NACJD's Fast Track Release and are distributed as they there received from the data depositor. The files have been zipped by NACJD for release, but not checked or processed except of the removal of direct identifiers. Users should refer to the accompany readme file for a brief description of the files available with this collections and consult the investigator(s) if further information is needed.

The purpose of the study was to examine the effectiveness of a multidisciplinary team (MDT) intervention - the Los Angeles County Elder Abuse Forensic Center to: 1) prosecute elder abuse, 2) protect vulnerable older adults through conservatorship, and 3) reduce or prevent recurring cases of abuse. The study used a quasi-experimental design and focused on elder abuse cases involving victims aged 65 or older reviewed at the Los Angeles County Elder Abuse Forensic Center (the Center) between April 1, 2007 and December 31, 2009. These Center cases were compared to a propensity score match sample of Los Angeles County Adult Protective Services (APS) cases. Data were collected from Adult Protective Services case files, District Attorney filings, and Office of the Public Guardian conservatorship records.

Initially funded in 2013 by the National Institute of Justice, the primary purpose of this project was to conduct a randomized-control test of the impact of a victim-focused, forensic collaborative relative to usual care (UC) on older adult victims' health, mental health, and criminal justice outcomes. During the course of the project, researchers responded to enrollment and consent challenges by implementing Arm 2 that focused on collecting caseworker and victim advocate perceptions of cases as well as administrative data from Adult Protective Services (APS).

This collection contains 6 datasets:

• Arm 1 (DS1) contains survey results from victim-focused interviews of 40 older adults who were reported to be victims of abuse, neglect, and/or financial exploitation over 4 time points. Variables describe victim and case characteristics, service use/needs, risk factors for abuse, consequences of abuse and exploitation, and criminal justice process and outcomes.
• Arm 2 (DS2) includes a survey of APS caseworkers reporting on a case of older adult abuse, such as client (older adult victim) and perpetrator demographics, mistreatment details (verbal abuse, physical abuse, sexual abuse, neglect, financial exploitation, and/or housing exploitation), and service use.
• Collateral assessments (DS3) surveyed a trusted individual related to the older adult respondent in Arm 1. This included data on the perceptions of the older adult's functioning and use of services; and the quality of decision-making procedures, desired treatment, and outcomes in the criminal justice system. Of the 40 Arm 1 participants interviewed, 33 gave collateral contact information. Of those 33, 16 could not be reached, one failed the consent quiz, and two declined to participate. Of the 14 who participated in an initial interview, only three participated at the follow-up nine months later.
• Revictimization and Prosecutorial Outcome Data (DS5) includes information on new incidents reported to law enforcement over the nine months following the original incident report and prosecution outcomes, gathered from publicly-accessible police reports and court information for Arm 1 and Arm 2 cases.
• APS administrative data (DS6), such as the demographics of the older adult victim and the primary perpetrator, assessment scores for risk and safety, the alleged mistreatment type, whether mistreatment was substantiated, and APS case status. The data included overall risk/safety scores and summary scores for the domains of physical functioning, environmental context, financial resources, mental health, cognition, medical issues, and mistreatment.

Arm 1 demographic variables includes age, gender, education, employment status, marital status, household size, ethnic minority, and income source. Arm 2 surveys reported ethnicity, gender, age, education, marital status, and employment status; APS data reported age and gender.

In 1995-1996, the MacArthur Midlife Research Network carried out a national survey of over 7,000 Americans aged 25 to 74 (ICPSR 2760). The purpose of the study was to investigate the role of behavioral, psychological, and social factors in understanding age-related differences in physical and mental health.

With support from the National Institute on Aging, an initial follow-up of the original Midlife Development in the United States (MIDUS) samples was conducted in 2004 (MIDUS 2). The daily stress and cognitive functioning projects were repeated at MIDUS 2; in addition the protocol was expanded to include biomarkers and neuroscience. In 2005, a baseline sample of 592 African Americans from Milwaukee was added to MIDUS to examine health issues in minority populations.

In 2013, a third wave (MIDUS 3) of survey data was collected on longitudinal participants. Data collection for this follow-up wave largely repeated baseline assessments (e.g., phone interview and extensive self-administered questionnaire), with additional questions in selected areas (e.g., economic recession experiences, optimism and coping, stressful life events, and caregiving). A third wave of cognitive functioning data and a second wave of the Milwaukee sample were also collected. Data collection for the daily diary, biomarkers, and neuroscience is ongoing. This dataset includes all known MIDUS decedents (N=2,533) from the Core National and Milwaukee samples as of December 2023.

In 2011-2014, the MIDUS recruited a national probability sample of 3,577 adults, aged 25 to 74, designed to replenish the original MIDUS 1 (M1) baseline cohort and paralleling the five decadal age groups of the M1 baseline survey (ICPSR 2760).

The MIDUS Refresher (MR1) survey included the same comprehensive assessments as those assembled on the original MIDUS Core sample (obtained via interview and self-administered questionnaire), but with additional questions about the effect of the economic recession of 2008-09.

In 2012-2013, the National MIDUS Refresher sample was augmented with a sample of 508 Milwaukee African American adults, aged 25 to 64. This sample was designed to increase the number of racial minorities included in the MIDUS study. The MIDUS Milwaukee Refresher survey also included the same assessments as those in the Milwaukee Core sample (ICPSR 22840) and employed a personal interview. This dataset includes all known decedents from the National (ICPSR 36532) and Milwaukee (ICPSR 36722) Refresher samples, and is current for NDI records through December, 2023.

In 1958, the Medical Follow-up Agency (MFUA) of the Institute of Medicine began a project to identify twins who had jointly entered military service during World War II. In the end, MFUA identified nearly 16,000 White male twin pairs born 1917-1927 in which both members had served in the military. These twins comprise the National Academy of Sciences-National Research Council World War II Twin Registry (NAS-NRC Twin Registry). This collection represents data from service records, a mailed questionnaire assessing zygosity, and repeating health surveys, including information on education, employment history, and earnings.

There are nine datasets associated with this restricted-use collection:

1) The Administrative dataset includes demographic, zygosity, service history, mortality, and questionnaire participation data;

2) The Service and Other Records dataset contains information collected from service records, physical exam data, cognitive test data, and dental records;

3) The Questionnaire 2 dataset consists of data collected in the first mailed questionnaire sent in 1965 about pain, illnesses, smoking habits, alcohol consumption, and employment;

4) The Questionnaire 3 dataset includes data from the baseline epidemiological questionnaire sent in 1974 about number and sex of children, religious attendance, education, income, and occupation;

5) Questionnaire 7, mailed in 1985, contains similar topics as in Questionnaire 2, and includes data about health conditions such as diabetes, as well as feelings about work and retirement;

6) Questionnaire 8 was mailed in 1998 was the third epidemiologic questionnaire. This dataset is comprised of overlapping topics with Q2 and Q7, and has additional data about feelings, prescription medications, activity levels, the Geriatric Depression Scale, and parental death status;

7) The NEO Personality Inventory dataset includes responses to the NEO Five-Factor Personality Inventory mailed in 2005-2006;

8) The Service and Death Records dataset (VDE access only) contains information about date and place of birth, state at induction, disciplinary measures during service, decorations received during service, indicator for those known to have been POWs, reason for separation from the military, age at death if died over age 90, and cause of death. Some of this information was obtained from the re-read of service records and is thus available only for a subset of 6357 men;

9) Diagnoses dataset (VDE access only) contains data about medical conditions diagnosed between 1935 and 1985 that were abstracted from a variety of medical records over the course of the study. The diagnoses were coded using the International Classification of Disease system (WHO, 2015).