Dual Sensory Loss and Its Impact on Everyday Competence

The Gerontologist Vol. 45, No. 3, 337 346 Copyright 2005 by The Gerontological Society of America Dual Sensory Loss and Its Impact on Everyday Competence Mark Brennan, PhD, 1 Amy Horowitz, DSW, 1 and Ya-ping Su, PhD 2 Purpose: This study examined the relation of dual and single sensory impairments, within the context of cognitive function, by using the framework of everyday competence in terms of the probability of difficulty with specific personal and instrumental activities of daily living (ADLs and IADLs, respectively). Design and Methods: The Longitudinal Study on Aging, composed of individuals aged 70 and older in 1984 (N = 5,151), provided data for the present analyses. In each IADL and ADL domain, binary logistic regressions assessed the probability of difficulty associated with sensory impairment and cognitive status after sociodemographic and physical health covariates were controlled for. Results: One fifth of older adults reported dual sensory impairment, which was associated with greater IADL than ADL task difficulty compared with single sensory loss. Further, high levels of dual impairment were shown to increase the risk of difficulty in three of six IADL tasks (preparing meals, shopping, and using the telephone) over vision impairment alone. Overall, cognitive status was a significant predictor of both ADL and IADL difficulties, which was not expected from the everyday competence framework. Implications: Findings highlight the importance of sensory resources for everyday competence and suggest the need for effective vision and hearing rehabilitation to assist older adults in improving or maintaining their functional independence. Key Words: Vision impairment, Hearing impairment, Disability This research was supported by a grant from the AARP Andrus Foundation. Portions of this article were presented in November 2000 at the annual meeting of The Gerontological Society of America, Washington, DC. Address correspondence to Mark Brennan, PhD, Senior Research Associate, Arlene R. Gordon Research Institute, Lighthouse International, 111 East 59th Street, New York, NY 10022-1202. E-mail: mbrennan@lighthouse.org 1 Arlene R. Gordon Research Institute, Lighthouse International, New York, NY. 2 The Peer Review Organization of New Jersey, East Brunswick, NJ. Sensory impairment is one of the most common chronic conditions of later life; visual impairment affects between 9% and 18% of older adults and hearing loss affects 24% to 33% (Campbell, Crews, Moriarty, Zack, & Blackman, 1999; Crews & Campbell, 2004). Much less attention has been paid to concurrent losses in vision and hearing, or dual sensory loss. Between 5% and 9% of older adults are estimated to have dual sensory loss (Campbell et al.; Crews & Campbell; Raina, Wong, Dukeshire, Chambers, & Lindsay, 2000). Dual sensory impairment may have a greater impact on functional ability than a single impairment, and it may exacerbate problems resulting from even mild sensory loss by interfering with compensation using the other sense (Glass, 2000). For example, individuals who are visually impaired often use hearing to compensate (Wahl, Oswald, & Zimprich, 1999). In this article, our purpose is to examine the prevalence of dual sensory impairment and its effects on functional ability by using the framework of everyday competence. Everyday Competence in Later Life Everyday competence in later life is the ability to function independently in the community, and this often requires adaptation to loss in various life domains (Baltes & Lang, 1997; Diehl, 1998; Willis, 1996). Resources in sensorimotor, cognitive, personality, and social domains can offset losses and facilitate adaptation, but they can constrain adaptation when they are limited (Baltes & Lang; Diehl; Lang, Rieckmann, & Baltes, 2002). The everyday competence model posits that resource losses will have a differential effect on functional ability; namely, complex tasks will be more severely affected than basic tasks. Task complexity is largely a function of the cognitive and sensorimotor demands of the activity (Diehl; Willis). Thus, loss of competence would initially be manifested in instrumental activities of daily living (IADLs), such as managing money, before it affected more basic self-care personal activities of daily living (ADLs) such as eating or toileting (Baltes & Lang; Lang et al.; Vol. 45, No. 3, 2005 337

Wahl, Schilling, Oswald, & Heyl, 1999). In fact, research has confirmed that cognitive and sensorimotor resources are reliable predictors of IADL task dysfunction (i.e., managing money or using the telephone; see Wahl, Schilling et al.; Willis). Because vision and hearing function are resources in the sensorimotor domain (Baltes & Lang), the everyday competence model would predict that dual impairment would have a more severe impact on functional ability than would a single impairment, because it entails a greater loss of sensorimotor resources. Empirical Evidence and the Competence Model of Sensory Loss Little research has examined functional competence and dual sensory loss. However, there is a strong relation between visual impairment and functional disability among elderly individuals, even when confounding covariates are controlled for (Branch, Horowitz, & Carr, 1989; Carabellese et al., 1993; Marsiske, Klumb, & Baltes, 1997). Although hearing-impaired elderly persons may have greater functional disability than those who are nonimpaired (Carabellese et al.; Marsiske et al.; Strawbridge, Wallhagan, Shema, & Kaplan, 2000), this has not been a consistent finding (Rudberg, Furner, Dunn, & Cassel, 1993). Moreover, the impact of hearing impairment on functional ability does not appear as robust compared with that of vision loss (Crews & Campbell, 2004; Ford et al., 1988; Wallhagen, Strawbridge, Shema, Kurata, & Kaplan, 2001). Thus, vision and hearing loss may affect functional ability differentially, because vision represents a primary information pathway compared with other senses like hearing (Hershberger, 1992). Studies examining the effects of visual impairment on functional competence support the prediction of greater impact on complex IADL tasks relative to ADL abilities (Branch et al.; Furner, Rudberg, & Cassell, 1995; Horowitz, Reinhardt, McInerney, & Balistreri, 1994; Wahl, Oswald et al., 1999; Wahl, Shilling, et al., 1999; Wallhagen et al.). Although Appollonio, Frattola, Carabellese, and Trabucchi (1989) found that dual impairment did not lead to additional deterioration of ADL and IADL ability over a single impairment, the available, albeit limited, research that exists tends to be in line with the everyday competence model. Namely, greater ADL dysfunction is related to dual impairment (i.e., greater resource loss) as compared with single impairments (Keller, Morton, Thomas, & Potter, 1999; LaForge, Spector, & Sternberg, 1992; Reuben, Mui, Damesyn, Moore, & Greendale, 1999; Smith & Kington, 1999). Crews and Campbell (2004) assessed single and dual sensory impairment in relation to ADLs among adults aged 70 and older. For all tasks, dual impairment, followed by vision impairment, and lastly hearing loss, increased the risk of difficulty compared with no sensory loss. However, Crews and Campbell did not examine the relative risk of increased difficulty between single and dual impairment, and their analyses did not control for other important covariates of functional ability, which may have overestimated the impact of dual sensory loss on everyday competence. Purpose and Rationale In the present study we examined the relation of dual sensory loss to functional competence among older adults. We included cognitive function in these analyses because it is an important resource domain for everyday competence (Diehl, 1998; Willis, 1996), and cognitive dysfunction and sensory loss are hypothesized to result from a common cause of neuropsychological aging (Lindenberger, Scherer, & Baltes, 2001; Wahl & Heyl, 2003). We build on and expand existing research by examining dual sensory loss relative to both no impairments and single impairments and functional competence, and by considering the roles of sensory loss and cognitive function on ADL ability in multivariate models that control for sociodemographic and physical health covariates. Using the everyday competence model, we made the following hypotheses: 1. Dual sensory impairment would result in greater functional impairment compared with single sensory loss or no impairment because it represents a greater loss of sensorimotor resources. 2. Cognitive dysfunction would predict functional impairment. 3. There would be a differential impact on the effects of sensory loss and cognitive ability on functional competence, with more complex IADLs (i.e., managing money, using the telephone) most likely to be affected, followed by other IADL tasks, whereas basic ADL tasks would be the least likely to be affected. Methods Source of Data We obtained data from the Longitudinal Study on Aging (LSOA). The LSOA used a nationally representative sample of individuals who were 70 years and older at the 1984 baseline interview, with three follow-ups every 2 years (Kovar, Fitti, & Chyba, 1992). Because of budget constraints, the 1986 sample was limited and 32% of the 1984 sample was not eligible, yielding 5,151 participants in 1986. Because we wanted to have comparable samples for cross-sectional and subsequent four-wave longitudinal analyses for interpretation of findings, we used the smaller sample of 5,151 participants in our analyses, excluding those ineligible in 1986. 338 The Gerontologist

Measures Sociodemographic Characteristics. We used seven measures of sociodemographic characteristics: age, gender, race, education, poverty, living alone, and proxy interview (see Table 1). Age and education were continuous variables. We dummycoded being female, being Black, belonging to other race, living below poverty level, living alone, and using a proxy as 1 = yes and 0 = no. We included proxy interview status as a sociodemographic factor because it may result from a variety of causes (e.g., frailty, dementia). Physical Health. Self-rated health had five response categories, ranging from poor to excellent (see Table 1). Respondents also were asked about their level of physical activity compared with others their age on a 5-point scale ranging from a lot less to a lot more active. The number of health conditions was an index of 13 possible medical conditions. Cognitive Status. We used two self-assessed measures of cognitive function trouble remembering and frequency of confusion (see Table 1). Respondents were asked, In the past year, about how often did you have trouble remembering things or how often did you get confused frequently, sometimes, rarely, or never. We coded answers as 3 = frequently, 2=sometimes, 1=rarely, and 0=never. Sensory Impairment. We used two self-report items to compute graded classifications of vision and hearing loss that asked, Which statement best describes your vision [or hearing] even when wearing glasses or contact lenses [or hearing aid] no trouble, a little trouble, or a lot of trouble? We classified participants responding a lot as severely impaired, those responding a little as moderately impaired, and those reporting no trouble as not impaired. In addition, we classified individuals reporting being blind in both eyes or deaf in both ears as severely visually or hearing impaired, respectively. We combined individual vision and hearing status variables to construct the dual sensory impairment variable; we classified individuals with two severe impairments as having severe dual, those with one severe impairment and one moderate impairment as mixed dual, and those with two moderate impairments as moderate dual impairment. We classified those with a single impairment regardless of severity as singly impaired, and the remainder we classified as no impairment. Functional Tasks. The seven ADL tasks were bathing or showering, dressing, eating, getting in or out of a bed or chair, walking, getting outside, and toileting. The six IADL tasks were preparing meals, shopping, managing money, using the telephone, Table 1. Descriptives of Sociodemographic and Comorbid Health Covariates Covariate Coding Scheme M SD Sociodemographics Age (years) 70 99 78.171 5.958 Female 1 ¼ yes, 0.639 0.480 0 ¼ no Black 1 ¼ yes, 0.108 0.310 0 ¼ otherwise Other race 1 ¼ yes, 0.011 0.102 0 ¼ otherwise Education (years) 0 18 9.763 3.706 Below poverty 1 ¼ yes, 0.159 0.366 0 ¼ otherwise Live alone 1 ¼ yes, 0.372 0.483 0 ¼ otherwise Proxy interview 1 ¼ yes, 0.109 0.312 0 ¼ no Health Status Self-rated health 1 ¼ poor, 3.630 0.931 5 ¼ excellent Health compared to peers 3.525 1.117 1 ¼ a lot less, 5 ¼ a lot more active No. of health conditions 0 10 1.099 1.089 Cognitive Status Trouble remembering Getting confused 0 ¼ never, 3 ¼ frequently 0 ¼ never, 3 ¼ frequently 1.578 0.991 0.695 0.880 doing heavy housework, and doing light housework. For each item, we rated the degree of difficulty as none, some, a lot, or unable to do. We dummy-coded these ordinal responses because there was a large proportion of respondents reporting no task difficulty (i.e., 0 = no difficulty and 1 = difficulty; see Table 2). Design and Analysis Weighted LSOA data yielded population estimates for noninstitutionalized adults 70 years of age and older in the United States in 1984. We omitted cases with missing data on self-reported vision status (0.7%), and hearing trouble (1.5%) from analysis. We used unweighted data for logistic regression on ADL IADL task difficulty because previous research has found little difference between the weighted and unweighted LSOA samples in variance covariance estimation when sociodemographic covariates are included in analysis (Stump, Johnson, & Wolinsky, 1995). We included sociodemographics and health comorbidity in multivariate models to control for their effects on ADL IADL outcomes. Because the functional tasks were dichotomous (i.e., 0 = no task difficulty; 1 = any task difficulty), we used binary logistic regressions for multivariate analyses. Vol. 45, No. 3, 2005 339

Table 2. Descriptive Statistics on ADL and IADL Limitations Variable % With Difficulty Frequency Total ADL Bathing 13.3 669 4,997 Dressing 8.0 397 4,994 Eating 2.1 103 4,997 Getting in and out of bed 10.5 524 4,996 Walking 24.1 1,202 4,991 Going outside 14.0 696 4,974 Toileting 6.4 319 4,990 IADL Preparing meals 10.9 509 4,689 Shopping 17.4 834 4,850 Managing money 8.0 391 4,872 Using the telephone 6.9 343 4,948 Performing heavy housework 33.9 1,496 4,404 Performing light housework 10.6 505 4,751 Notes: ADL = activities of daily living; IADL = instrumental ADL. To gauge the relative effects of sensory impairment status, we performed three separate models using a different reference group of sensory impairment status (i.e., no sensory impairment, vision impairment only, or hearing impairment only) for each analysis to compare the effects of dual sensory impairment versus single impairments on the probability of having specific ADL IADL difficulties. To control for Type I error rates for these multiple comparisons, we made a Bonferroni correction by dividing the number of reference group comparisons (i.e., three) by the alpha level of.05; thus we considered results at only the p,.01 level to be statistically significant for sensory status variables. Results Prevalence of Dual Sensory Impairment Using the graded classification already described, we found that 21% of older adults reported some degree of dual impairment; we classified 13% as having moderate dual impairment, 5% as having mixed dual impairment, and 2% as having severe dual sensory loss. In addition, 15% reported single impairments of vision, 22% reported single impairments of hearing, and 43% reported no sensory impairments. Effects of Dual Sensory Impairment on ADL IADL Tasks The discussion of findings focuses on the differential effects of cognition and sensory impairments on functional competence, independent of sociodemographics and physical health. However, some trends regarding the latter variables are worth noting. Greater age showed a positive relation to difficulty with all ADL and IADL tasks except eating. Women were more likely than men to report difficulty preparing meals, shopping, doing heavy and light housework, bathing, getting in and out of bed, walking, getting outside, and toileting. Blacks were more likely than Whites to report difficulty with preparing meals, shopping, doing heavy and light housework, dressing, walking, getting outside, and toileting. We found a consistent positive relationship between measures of functional disability and proxy interview, as well as all three indicators of poor comorbid health. ADL The effects of cognitive factors, dual impairment, and single sensory loss on ADL task difficulty are shown in Table 3. Bathing. Problems with memory were not related to difficulty bathing, but frequency of confusion increased the risk of difficulty by 17%. Single vision impaired elders had a 69% greater risk of difficulty compared with those with no sensory impairment. However, single hearing impairment was not a significant risk factor for bathing difficulty. Mixed and severely dual sensory impaired elders showed a greater risk of difficulty with bathing compared with nonimpaired elders, but dual impairment did not increase the risk of difficulty compared with single impairment. Dressing. Although frequency of confusion demonstrated a similar increased risk of dressing difficulty in comparison with bathing (i.e., 19%), surprisingly, trouble with memory was associated with a decrease in task difficulty by 22%. Single sensory impairments did not increase the probability of difficulty with dressing. In terms of dual sensory impairment, elders with all levels of dual sensory impairments were approximately twice as likely to report difficulty with dressing as respondents with no sensory impairments or hearing impairment only. However, when referenced against elders with single impairments in vision, dual sensory impairment did not represent additional risk of task difficulty. Eating. Frequency of confusion increased the risk of difficulty with eating by 60%, but we found no significant effects for memory. Single and dual sensory impairment did not significantly increase the risk of difficulty with eating. Getting in and out of Bed. Cognitive status was not associated with risk of difficulty with this activity. 340 The Gerontologist

Table 3. Odds Ratios and 95% Confidence Intervals for Specific ADL Task Difficulty Due to Cognitive Dysfunction and Single and Dual Sensory Impairment ADL Task Bathing Dressing Eating In/Out of Bed Walking Getting Outside Toileting Covariate OR (CI) OR (CI) OR (CI) OR (CI) OR (CI) OR (CI) OR (CI) Memory trouble 0.90 (0.79 1.01) 0.78* (0.66 0.92) 0.80 (0.55 1.16) 1.00 (0.88 1.14) 0.88* (0.80 0.96) 0.82* (0.72 0.92) 0.85 (0.70 1.03) Frequency confused 1.17 (1.03 1.33) 1.19 (1.01 1.41) 1.59 (1.11 2.29) 1.11 (0.97 1.27) 1.10 (1.01 1.22) 1.13 (0.99 1.29) 1.27 (1.05 1.54) No sensory impairment reference group Moderate 1.36 (0.98 1.89) 2.05** (1.38 3.04) 1.01 (0.45 2.25) 1.69* (1.22 2.36) 1.63*** (1.29 2.07) 1.51 (1.10 2.08) 1.15 (0.74 1.79) Mixed 1.77* (1.21 2.59) 1.94* (1.24 3.03) 1.19 (0.54 2.63) 1.84* (1.24 2.72) 2.08*** (1.53 2.83) 1.86* (1.27 2.72) 0.76 (0.46 1.28) Severe 1.99* (1.21 3.28) 2.19* (1.25 3.86) 1.04 (0.41 2.63) 2.44** (1.49 4.00) 1.71 (1.11 2.64) 1.60 (0.96 2.67) 0.85 (0.45 1.61) Vision impaired only 1.69** (1.25 2.28) 1.43 (0.97 2.10) 0.89 (0.42 1.89) 1.49 (1.08 2.05) 1.46* (1.16 1.82) 1.60* (1.18 2.15) 0.97 (0.64 1.47) Hearing impaired only 1.13 (0.83 1.53) 1.06 (0.70 1.58) 1.32 (0.64 2.74) 1.26 (0.91 1.74) 1.06 (0.85 1.32) 0.94 (0.68 1.29) 0.86 (0.55 1.33) Vision impairment reference group Moderate 0.81 (0.58 1.12) 1.44 (0.97 2.13) 1.13 (0.52 2.44) 1.14 (0.81 1.59) 1.12 (0.87 1.45) 0.95 (0.68 1.31) 1.19 (0.76 1.86) Mixed 1.05 (0.72 1.53) 1.36 (0.88 2.10) 1.33 (0.64 2.79) 1.24 (0.84 1.82) 1.43 (1.04 1.97) 1.17 (0.80 1.71) 0.79 (0.48 1.31) Severe 1.18 (0.72 1.93) 1.54 (0.89 2.66) 1.16 (0.49 2.74) 1.64 (1.02 2.66) 1.18 (0.76 1.83) 1.01 (0.61 1.67) 0.88 (0.48 1.63) Hearing impaired only 0.67 (0.48 0.92) 0.74 (0.49 1.12) 1.48 (0.71 3.10) 0.85 (0.61 1.19) 0.73 (0.57 0.93) 0.59* (0.42 0.82) 0.89 (0.56 1.40) Not impaired 0.59** (0.44 0.80) 0.70 (0.48 1.03) 1.12 (0.53 2.38) 0.67 (0.49 0.92) 0.69* (0.55 0.86) 0.63* (0.47 0.84) 1.03 (0.68 1.57) Hearing impairment reference group Moderate 1.21 (0.86 1.70) 1.94* (1.28 2.94) 0.76 (0.36 1.64) 1.34 (0.95 1.89) 1.55** (1.20 1.99) 1.61* (1.14 2.27) 1.34 (0.84 2.14) Mixed 1.57 (1.07 2.31) 1.84* (1.16 2.90) 0.90 (0.43 1.90) 1.46 (0.98 2.16) 1.97*** (1.43 2.71) 1.98** (1.34 2.94) 0.89 (0.53 1.50) Severe 1.76 (1.07 2.90) 2.08 (1.19 3.65) 0.79 (0.33 1.87) 1.94* (1.19 3.15) 1.62 (1.05 2.51) 1.71 (1.02 2.86) 0.99 (0.53 1.86) Vision impaired only 1.50 (1.09 2.06) 1.35 (0.89 2.05) 0.68 (0.32 1.41) 1.18 (0.84 1.65) 1.38 (1.07 1.77) 1.70* (1.22 2.37) 1.13 (0.71 1.78) Not impaired 0.89 (0.65 1.21) 0.95 (0.89 2.05) 0.76 (0.36 1.57) 0.79 (0.57 1.09) 0.95 (0.76 1.18) 1.07 (0.77 1.47) 1.16 (0.75 1.81) Notes: ADL = activity of daily living; OR = odds ratio; CI = confidence interval. Odds ratios are adjusted for the effects of sociodemographic and health covariates. *p,.01; **p,.001; ***p,.0001; p,.05 (cognitive covariates only). Vol. 45, No. 3, 2005 341

Overall, single vision or hearing impaired older adults did not have a greater risk of difficulty with getting in and out of bed relative to their nonimpaired counterparts. Severely dual sensory impaired elders were the most likely to have difficulty in getting in and out of bed; they were almost 2.5 times more likely than nonimpaired elders, and almost twice as likely to report difficulty compared with those who were singly hearing impaired. However, dual sensory impairment did not increase the risk of difficulty with this task relative to single vision impairment. Walking. As in some other ADL tasks, whereas frequency of confusion increased the risk of walking difficulty by 10%, trouble with memory was associated with a 12% decrease in the likelihood of difficulty. Single vision impaired elders were 46% more likely than those with no sensory impairments to report walking difficulty. Single hearing loss was not associated with difficulty in walking. Dual sensory impaired elderly persons exhibited a greater difficulty in walking when compared with their nonimpaired or singly hearing impaired counterparts. However, there was no increased risk in walking difficulty associated with dual sensory loss over single vision impairment. Getting Outside. Trouble with memory was related to a decrease in the likelihood of difficulty in getting outside (i.e., 18%) similar to other ADL tasks, but confusion was not related to this activity. Compared with unimpaired elders, those who were vision impaired only were 60% more likely to have difficulty getting outside. Hearing impairment was not associated with greater difficulty. Mixed dual impaired elderly individuals also had an 86% greater risk of such difficulty than the nonimpaired individuals. However, when referenced against single impairments in vision, dual sensory impairment was no longer significant. Thus, vision impairment by itself contributed to a greater risk of difficulty in getting outside, whereas having a hearing impairment did not significantly increase the risk of task difficulty. Toileting. Frequency of confusion increased the risk of difficulty with toileting by 27%, although trouble with memory was not related to task difficulty. Furthermore, none of the sensory impairment variables was significantly associated with difficulty in using the toilet. IADL The effects of cognitive factors, dual impairment, and single sensory loss on IADL task difficulty are shown in Table 4. Preparing Meals. Cognitive variables of trouble with memory and frequency of confusion were not associated with risk of meal preparation difficulty. Elderly individuals with a single impairment in vision had twice the risk of reporting difficulty in preparing meals compared with those with no sensory impairment. In contrast, having a single impairment in hearing did not significantly increase the difficulty with this task compared with having no impairment. In terms of dual impairment, although having a moderate dual impairment did not significantly predict difficulty with preparing meals relative to having no impairment, having a mixed or severe dual impairment greatly increased the risk. A more complex picture emerges when we examined the three levels of dual impairment relative to a single impairment in vision. Having a severe dual impairment continued to have a negative effect on ability to prepare one s meals, over and beyond that accounted for by the vision impairment, suggesting that the effect of dual impairment on meal preparation is most likely evidenced with the highest level of vision impairment (i.e., a lot of trouble rather than a little trouble). Hearing impairment did not contribute to risk for difficulty with this task. Shopping. Cognitive status variables were not significantly related to risk of difficulty with shopping. Single vision impairment, but not hearing impairment, accounted for greater reported difficulty with shopping. Visually impaired elders had a greater risk of reporting difficulty in shopping than those without any sensory loss and compared with elders with hearing impairment only. In contrast, having a single impairment in hearing was not related to increased task difficulty compared with having no impairment. Whereas having a moderate dual impairment did not significantly increase shopping difficulty compared with having no impairment, having a mixed or severe dual impairment sharply increased the risk. Furthermore, severe dual impairment continued to be associated with difficulty in shopping, over and beyond that accounted for by vision impairment alone. Because moderate dual impairment actually showed a 47% decrease in the risk of shopping difficulty when referenced against single impairment in vision, this suggests again that the negative effects of vision on the ability to shop are mostly evident at higher levels of impairment. Managing Money. Frequency of confusion was associated with a 52% increased risk for difficulty in managing money, but memory trouble was not related to this complex IADL task. Respondents with a single impairment in vision had more than 3 times the risk of reporting difficulty in managing money than those without any sensory impairment. In contrast, singly hearing impaired elders did not differ in their ability to manage money compared with the unimpaired. Having a mixed dual impairment or 342 The Gerontologist

Table 4. Odds Ratios and 95% Confidence Intervals for Specific IADL Task Difficulty Due to Cognitive Dysfunction and Single and Dual Sensory Impairment IADL Task Preparing Meals Shopping Managing Money Using the Telephone Heavy Housework Light Housework Covariate OR (CI) OR (CI) OR (CI) OR (CI) OR (CI) OR (CI) Memory trouble 0.97 (0.82 1.13) 0.91 (0.81 1.03) 0.93 (0.76 1.13) 0.93 (0.76 1.14) 1.03 (0.91 1.13) 0.94 (0.80 1.09) Frequency confused 1.15 (0.97 1.35) 1.13 (0.99 1.29) 1.52*** (1.26 1.84) 1.42** (1.17 1.72) 1.09 (0.98 1.20) 1.13 (0.96 1.32) No sensory impairment reference group Moderate 1.31 (0.87 1.98) 1.22 (0.88 1.68) 1.24 (0.76 2.01) 1.34 (0.79 2.28) 2.06*** (1.62 2.63) 1.12 (0.76 1.67) Mixed 3.22*** (2.06 5.05) 3.40*** (2.34 4.94) 3.14*** (1.93 5.11) 4.29*** (2.60 7.09) 2.59*** (1.81 3.71) 1.88* (1.21 2.91) Severe 4.39*** (2.43 7.96) 5.37*** (3.14 9.17) 3.93*** (2.14 7.24) 7.60*** (4.18 13.82) 3.62*** (2.05 6.42) 2.37* (1.33 4.21) Vision impaired only 1.99** (1.38 2.86) 2.31*** (1.74 3.07) 3.01*** (1.98 4.56) 2.39** (1.50 3.83) 2.21*** (1.76 2.78) 1.50 (1.05 2.14) Hearing impaired only 0.80 (0.53 1.21) 0.84 (0.62 1.15) 0.75 (0.46 1.24) 2.25** (1.43 3.54) 1.17 (0.93 1.46) 0.70 (0.47 1.05) Vision impairment reference group Moderate 0.66 (0.44 0.99) 0.53** (0.38 0.73) 0.41*** (0.26 0.64) 0.56 (0.34 0.92) 0.93 (0.71 1.23) 0.75 (0.50 1.11) Mixed 1.62 (1.05 2.51) 1.47 (1.01 2.15) 1.05 (0.67 1.62) 1.79 (1.14 2.82) 1.17 (0.80 1.71) 1.25 (0.81 1.93) Severe 2.21* (1.24 3.95) 2.32* (1.36 3.98) 1.31 (0.74 2.32) 3.18*** (1.83 5.52) 1.64 (0.92 2.94) 1.58 (0.90 2.78) Hearing impaired only 0.40*** (0.26 0.61) 0.37*** (0.26 0.50) 0.25*** (0.16 0.40) 0.94 (0.61 1.45) 0.53*** (0.41 0.69) 0.47** (0.31 0.70) Not impaired 0.50** (0.35 0.73) 0.43*** (0.33 0.58) 0.33*** (0.22 0.51) 0.42** (0.26 0.67) 0.45*** (0.36 0.57) 0.67 (0.47 0.95) Hearing impairment reference group Moderate 1.65 (1.05 2.57) 1.45 (1.02 2.05) 1.64 (0.98 2.74) 0.60 (0.37 0.96) 1.76*** (1.35 2.30) 1.60 (1.04 2.48) Mixed 4.05*** (2.51 6.52) 4.04*** (2.72 6.00) 4.17*** (2.50 6.94) 1.91* (1.22 2.98) 2.22*** (1.53 3.22) 2.68*** (1.68 4.28) Severe 5.52*** (3.01 10.13) 6.37*** (3.69 11.01) 5.22*** (2.81 9.70) 3.38*** (1.96 5.82) 3.10** (1.74 5.53) 3.38** (1.88 6.10) Vision impaired only 2.49*** (1.65 3.78) 2.74*** (1.98 3.80) 3.99*** (2.51 6.35) 1.06 (0.69 1.63) 1.89*** (1.46 2.45) 2.14** (1.42 3.23) Not impaired 1.26 (0.83 1.90) 1.19 (0.87 1.62) 1.33 (0.81 2.18) 0.44** (0.28 0.70) 0.86 (0.68 1.07) 1.43 (0.96 2.13) Notes: IADL = instrumental activity of daily living; OR = odds ratio; CI = confidence interval. Odds ratios are adjusted for the effects of sociodemographic and health covariates. *p,.01; **p,.001; ***p,.0001. Vol. 45, No. 3, 2005 343

a severe dual impairment significantly increased the risk of difficulty with money management. However, having a moderate dual impairment did not significantly predict difficulty in this task relative to having no impairment. Mixed and severely dual impaired elders were also more likely to have increased difficulty with money management than the single hearing impaired. As was true of other IADL tasks, the effect of vision loss on the ability to manage money is more pronounced at higher levels of vision loss. Relative to a single impairment of vision, mixed or severe dual impairment were not associated with difficulty in managing money. However, moderate dual impaired elders had a 61% decreased risk of difficulty compared with elders reporting vision impairment only. These results suggest that severe vision impairment was responsible for most of the risk in difficulty with money management. Using the Telephone. Similar to managing money, frequency of confusion increased the risk of difficulty of using the telephone by nearly 50%, but trouble with memory was not related to task difficulty. The negative effects of vision and hearing impairments on the ability to use a telephone increased greatly among elders with higher levels of sensory losses. Single impairments of both vision and hearing increased the probability of having difficulty with telephone use. Severe dual sensory impairment significantly increased the risk of difficulty with telephone use over and above that accounted for by single visual impairment. We obtained similar results when comparing these dual impairment levels to a single impairment of hearing, except that those with mixed dual loss were also at greater risk. We found no significant differences between singly vision impaired and singly hearing impaired elders in the ability to use the telephone. Heavy Housework. Cognitive status variables were not significantly related to difficulty with heavy housework. However, vision impairment, but not hearing impairment, increased the risk of reporting difficulty with heavy housework. Singly vision impaired elders were 120% more likely to report difficulty in performing heavy housework compared with those with no sensory impairment, and they had a 47% greater risk than elders with a single hearing impairment. We found no differences between singly hearing impaired and nonimpaired elderly persons in reporting difficulty with this task. Dual sensory impairment did not significantly increase the risk of difficulty with heavy housework over that accounted for by vision impairment alone. Light Housework. As was the case with heavy housework, cognitive status was not significantly related to task difficulty. Single sensory impairments were also not associated with a greater task difficulty compared with no sensory impairment. Although having a moderate dual impairment was not associated with difficulty in this task relative to having no impairment, having a mixed or a severe dual impairment significantly increased the risk of difficulty. Although there was no significant difference in ability to do light housework when we compared the singly hearing impaired elderly individuals with those who were not impaired, the odds ratios for the two highest levels of dual sensory impairment were significantly greater relative to a single impairment in hearing. Thus, vision impairment appeared to be responsible for the effects of dual impairment on the ability to do light housework, whereas hearing impairment was not a significant factor. Discussion The present study revealed a high prevalence of sensory impairment among older adults in this cohort, with 21% reporting concurrent vision and hearing impairments. Study hypotheses on the relationship of sensory impairment status and cognitive ability to IADL competence were largely, but not consistently, supported. Regarding the most complex tasks in the group managing money and using the telephone frequency of confusion predicted increased risk of task difficulty. Further, dual impairment represented an increased risk of difficulty over single impairments and no impairment for using the telephone. However, for managing money, dual impairment did not represent an increased risk for task difficulty over vision impairment alone. Hypotheses were supported in terms of tasks of preparing meals and shopping, with dual impairment representing a greater risk of task difficulty compared with single and no impairment. With regard to heavy and light housekeeping, although the dual and single vision impaired individuals had significantly greater difficulty with this task compared with hearing impaired only and nonimpaired individuals, dual impairment did not represent an increased risk of difficulty over vision impairment alone. However, cognitive status was only related to the two most complex tasks in this group, which is in line with the competence model. Regarding ADL tasks, our hypotheses were partially supported. Dual impairment increased the risk of difficulty with these activities compared with hearing impairment only and no impairment, but it did not significantly increase risk over and above vision impairment. In addition, significant risks associated with sensory impairment and ADL difficultly were more modest than those for IADL tasks. This result is consistent with the competence model s prediction that resource loss would have a greater impact on complex tasks than on simple ones. However, among the cognitive status variables, we 344 The Gerontologist

did not expect the finding of a more pervasive role of confusion in increasing risk of difficulty with ADL as compared with IADL tasks; we also did not expect the finding that trouble with memory was associated with decreased risk in certain tasks (i.e., dressing, walking, and getting outside), as this was contrary to hypotheses generated with the competence model. The multiple-comparison approach used in the current study allowed functional disabilities resulting from single impairments to be examined separately from those resulting from dual impairment, which is an advance over previous examinations of the role of sensory loss and functional competence. This approach has revealed that most of the functional difficulty associated with dual sensory loss may be attributable to vision loss rather than hearing impairment, inasmuch as vision is the primary sense for obtaining information (Hershberger, 1992). However, similar to the study by Crews and Campbell (2004), the present study found that older adults with dual sensory loss experienced greater functional disability than older adults who were unimpaired. Higher levels of dual sensory impairment were shown to increase the risk of disability in three of the six IADL tasks (i.e., preparing meals, shopping, and using the telephone) over and beyond that accounted for by vision impairment. These findings are consistent with previous studies that found dual sensory loss to have a greater impact on functional disability than that seen with a single impairment (Crews & Campbell; Keller et al., 1999; Reuben et al., 1999; Smith & Kington, 1999). Study Limitations Although one of the strengths of the present analysis was the use of a large, nationally representative sample of older adults, limitations of these data were that analyses were cross-sectional and that all covariates were obtained through self-report. The self-report nature of the data may be responsible for the unexpected finding in which trouble with memory was related to decreased difficulty on three of the seven ADL tasks. Namely, self-rated memory measures often fail to correspond with actual cognitive performance (Zelinski & Gilewski, 2004). We were limited in choices of variables representing cognitive status because of the secondary nature of these data, and we recommend that future research in this area should use measures of cognitive function with better psychometric properties. Diehl (1998) further noted a number of problems with self-report of functional ability, including overestimation and underestimation of function depending on contextual factors. However, Diehl also noted that there are problems with more objective approaches (i.e., proxy ratings, objective performance) and suggested a triangulation approach of self-report, proxy reports, and performance measures. This is a recommendation we support for future research in this area. Self-report on sensory and cognitive status may also have yielded biased estimates, so a multiple measurement approach for these factors appears warranted. Finally, the present analyses did not account for important personality and social support resources that also are considered fundamental in explanations of everyday competence (Baltes & Lang, 1997; Diehl; Lang et al., 2002). Future research should include these domains in studies of cognition, sensory status, and functional ability. Study Implications Despite limitations of the present study, data suggest that elderly persons with dual sensory loss and single impairments of vision are at risk for decreased everyday competence and the capacity for independent living. Abnormal changes to vision and hearing in later life are often mistaken for normative aging, and decrements to these senses result in poorer quality of life for those affected and their significant others (Crews & Campbell, 2004; Glass, 2000; Wahl & Heyl, 2003). Thus, outreach should be expanded on the prevention, identification, and rehabilitation options for older adults with single and dual sensory loss. Given the high prevalence of single and dual sensory loss in the older population, vision and hearing screening should be part of any regular physical assessment for older individuals. Health, social service, and rehabilitation providers also need better training in the identification of sensory impairment, which may be concealed by the older person because of the stigmatization of these conditions (Glass, 2000). In addition, service providers should receive training in methods that optimize communication with older adults experiencing dual sensory loss (LeJeune, Steinman, & Mascia, 2003). Present findings suggest that both vision and dual sensory loss have a greater impact on IADL compared with ADL tasks, which is important in the planning and targeting of rehabilitation services. Vision and aural rehabilitation programs should examine current practices in order to optimize training and assistance with IADL tasks. Unfortunately, knowledge and utilization of available sensory rehabilitation programs is low (Horowitz, Reinhardt, & Brennan, 1997). Such lack of knowledge represents a barrier to services, and ultimately it can result in excess disability among those with sensory impairments. Thus, outreach and education of aging professionals on sensory rehabilitation may be one method of bridging this gap. Greater access to health care for visual and auditory examinations also could reduce the prevalence of sensory loss in later life caused by preventable and Vol. 45, No. 3, 2005 345

treatable disease. Unfortunately, most insurance plans cover neither routine vision and hearing examinations nor sensory rehabilitation to minimize the disabling effects of sensory loss. Although a Medicare demonstration project to cover vision rehabilitation services was included in the Medicare Modernization Act of 2004, more has to be done to ensure that older people with sensory loss have access to services that promote independent living. It is far more cost effective to help these individuals maintain their independent status through rehabilitation programs than to deal with the consequences of disability in terms of continuing declines in mental and physical health associated with disability. References Appollonio, I., Frattola, L., Carabellese, C., & Trabucchi, M. (1989). The eyes and ears of the world of function. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 37, 1099 1100. Baltes, M. M., & Lang, F. R. (1997). Everyday functioning and successful aging: The impact of resources. Psychology and Aging, 12, 433 443. Branch, L. G., Horowitz, A., & Carr, C. (1989). The implications for everyday life of incident reported visual decline among people over age 65 living in the community. The Gerontologist, 29, 359 365. Campbell, V. A., Crews, J. E., Moriarty, D. G., Zack, M. M., & Blackman, D. K. (1999). Surveillance for sensory impairment, activity limitation, and health-related quality of life among older adults United States, 1993 1997. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report: CDC Surveillance Summaries, 48(SS-8), 131 157. Carabellese, C., Appollonio, I., Rozzini, R., Bianchetti, A., Frisoni, G. B., Frattola, L., et al. (1993). Sensory impairment and quality of life in a community elderly population. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 41, 401 407. Crews, J. E., & Campbell, V. A. (2004). Vision impairment and hearing loss among community-dwelling Americans: Implications for health and functioning. American Journal of Public Health, 94, 823 829. Diehl, M. (1998). Everyday competence in later life: Current status and future directions. The Gerontologist, 38, 422 433. Ford, A. B., Folmar, S. J., Salmon, R. B., Medalie, J. H., Roy, A. W., & Galazka, S. S. (1988). Health and function in the old and very old. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 36, 187 197. Furner, S. E., Rudberg, M. A., & Cassel, C. K. (1995). Medical conditions differentially affect the development of IADL disability: Implications for medical care and research. The Gerontologist, 35, 444 450. Glass, L. E. (2000). Dual vision and hearing impairment in adults. In B. Silverstone, M. A. Lang, B. P. Rosenthal, and E. E. Faye (Eds.), The Lighthouse handbook on vision impairment and vision rehabilitation (Vol. I, pp. 469 486). New York: Oxford University Press. Hershberger, P. J. (1992). Information loss: The primary psychological trauma of the loss of vision. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 74, 509 510. Horowitz, A., Reinhardt, J. P., & Brennan, M. (1997). Aging and vision loss: Experiences, attitudes and knowledge of older Americans (Final Report submitted to the AARP Andrus Foundation). New York: Arlene R. Gordon Research Institute, The Lighthouse Inc. Horowitz, A., Reinhardt, J. P., McInerney, R., & Balistreri, E. (1994). Agerelated vision loss: Factors associated with adaptation to chronic impairment over time (Final Report submitted to the AARP Andrus Foundation). New York: The Lighthouse Inc. Keller, B. K., Morton, J. L., Thomas, V. S., & Potter, J. F. (1999). The effect of visual and hearing impairments on functional status. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 47, 1319 1325. Kovar, M. G., Fitti, J. E., & Chyba, M. M. (1992). The Longitudinal Study on Aging: 1984 1990 (DHHS Publication No. 92-1304). Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics. LaForge, R. G., Spector, W. D., & Sternberg, J. (1992). The relationship of vision and hearing impairment to one-year mortality and functional decline. Journal of Aging and Health, 4, 126 148. Lang, F. R., Rieckmann, N., & Baltes, M. M. (2002). Adapting to aging losses: Do resources facilitate strategies of selection, compensation, and optimization in everyday functioning. Journal of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences, 57B, P501 P509. LeJeune, B. J., Steinman, B., & Mascia, J. (2003). Enhancing socialization of older people experiencing loss of both vision and hearing. Generations, 27(1), 95 97. Lindenberger, U., Scherer, W., & Baltes, P. B. (2001). The strong connection between sensory and cognitive performance in old age: Not due to sensory acuity reductions operating during cognitive assessment. Psychology and Aging, 16, 196 205. Marsiske, M., Klumb, P., & Baltes, M. (1997). Everyday activity patterns and sensory functioning in old age. Psychology and Aging, 12, 444 457. Raina, P., Wong, M., Dukeshire, S., Chambers, L. W., & Lindsay, J. (2000). Prevalence, risk factors and self-reported medical causes of seeing- and hearing-related disabilities among older adults. Canadian Journal on Aging, 19, 260 278. Reuben, D. B., Mui, S., Damesyn, M., Moore, A. A., & Greendale, G. A. (1999). The prognostic value of sensory impairment in older persons. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 47, 930 935. Rudberg, M. A., Furner, S. E., Dunn, J. E., & Cassel, C. K. (1993). The relationship of visual and hearing impairments to disability: An analysis using the Longitudinal Study of Aging. Journal of Gerontology: Medical Sciences, 48, M261 M265. Smith, L. P., & Kington, R. (1999). The relationship of self-rated vision and hearing to functional status and well-being among seniors 70 years and older. American Journal of Ophthalmology, 127, 447 452. Strawbridge, W. J., Wallhagen, M. I., Shema, S. J., & Kaplan, G. A. (2000). Negative consequences of hearing impairment in old age. The Gerontologist, 40, 320 326. Stump, T. E., Johnson, R. J., & Wolinsky, F. D. (1995). Changes in physician utilization over time among older adults. Journal of Gerontology: Social Sciences, 50B, S45 S58. Wahl, H.-W., & Heyl, V. (2003). Connections between vision, hearing, and cognitive function in old age. Generations, 27(1), 39 45. Wahl, H.-W., Oswald, F., & Zimprich, D. (1999). Everyday competence in visually impaired older adults: A case for person-environment perspectives. The Gerontologist, 39, 140 149. Wahl, H.-W., Schilling, O., Oswald, F., & Heyl, V. (1999). Psychosocial consequences of age-related visual impairment: Comparison with mobility-impaired older adults and long-term outcome. Journal of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences, 54B, P304 P316. Wallhagen, M. I., Strawbridge, W. J., Shema, S. J., Kurata, J., & Kaplan, G. A. (2001). Comparative impact of hearing and vision impairment on subsequent functioning. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 49, 1086 1092. Willis, S. L. (1996). Everyday cognitive competence in elderly persons: Conceptual issues and empirical findings. The Gerontologist, 36, 595 601. Zelinski, E. M., & Gilewski, M. J. (2004). A 10-item Rasch modeled memory self-efficacy scale. Aging & Mental Health, 8, 293 306. Received April 1, 2004 Accepted October 27, 2004 Decision Editor: Linda S. Noelker, PhD 346 The Gerontologist