Home › Research › Risk factors
Handicraft art leisure activities and cognitive reserve
Genna M Mashinchi, Craig P McFarland, Stuart Hall, Dawn L Strongin, Gary A Williams, Kelly A Cotter. The Clinical neuropsychologist, 2023-09-06
Topic: Brain imaging, connectivity and assessment
ObjectiveOlder individuals face a higher likelihood of developing dementia. The rate of cognitive decline resulting from dementia is not equivalent for all, as some patients with dementia are able to function independently longer than others, despite having similar disease burden. The cognitive reserve (CR) theory provides one explanation for the differing rate of decline. CR suggests that there are factors-most notably, educational attainment and occupational attainment-that can protect against the cognitive decline. Although the beneficial effects of these notable CR factors are clear, not all are easily modifiable. Participation in leisure activities may represent a more easily modifiable factor. Some research hints at beneficial effects of leisure activities, although specific leisure activities have not been well examined. The present study examined the relations between handicraft art leisure activities (HALAs) and multiple cognitive domains. MethodArchival WAIS-IV and demographic data for 50 California retirement community residents were examined. ResultsHALA participation accounted for statistically significant variance in working memory performance (R2 = .40, β = .24%) over and above the established CR factors of age, depression, educational attainment, and occupational attainment. In addition, HALA participation was related to a better ability to perform abstract visual information tasks (Block Design subtest, r = .28, p = .05) and non-verbal reasoning tasks (Visual Puzzles subtest, r = .38, p = .008). ConclusionsHALA participation among older adults could contribute to the retention of cognitive function, supporting the role of HALA participation as a CR factor.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Mashinchi, G. M., McFarland, C. P., Hall, S., Strongin, D. L., Williams, G. A., & Cotter, K. A. (2024). Handicraft art leisure activities and cognitive reserve. The Clinical neuropsychologist. https://doi.org/10.1080/13854046.2023.2253993
Vancouver
Mashinchi GM, McFarland CP, Hall S, Strongin DL, Williams GA, Cotter KA. Handicraft art leisure activities and cognitive reserve. The Clinical neuropsychologist. 2024. doi:10.1080/13854046.2023.2253993. PMID: 37674299.
BibTeX
@article{mashinchi2024-37674299,
author = {Mashinchi, Genna M and McFarland, Craig P and Hall, Stuart and Strongin, Dawn L and Williams, Gary A and Cotter, Kelly A},
title = {{Handicraft art leisure activities and cognitive reserve}},
journal = {The Clinical neuropsychologist},
year = {2024},
doi = {10.1080/13854046.2023.2253993},
pmid = {37674299},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1080/13854046.2023.2253993}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- CR suggests that there are factors-most notably, educational attainment and occupational attainment-that can protect against the cognitive decline.
- ResultsHALA participation accounted for statistically significant variance in working memory performance (R2 = .40, β = .24%) over and above the established CR factors of age, depression, educational attainment, and occupational attainment.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Risk factors, ranked →
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 43/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record, multi-centre collaboration and free to read, so those were left out: it earned 24 of the 56 points we could judge it on, which is 43 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (The Clinical neuropsychologist) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 4 / 5 | 2024 — within 3 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 37674299) |
| Free to read | — / 2 | Access not recorded — left out of this score |
| Points | 24 / 56 | Scored on 10 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 24 of the 56 points we could judge it on is 43 out of 100. |
| Total | 43 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Related
Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.
Related studies in Risk factors
Also tagged “reserve”
208 studies in the library carry the topic tag “reserve”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 208 tagged studies.