Statistical Analysis

Association of coping strategies and life satisfaction with depression among elderly

List of Tables

TableNo.

Title Page No.

Table No. 1 Frequencies (f) and percentages (%) for demographics (N=1600). 3-4

Table No. 2 Cronbach’s alpha reliabilities (a) of feelings scale for depression (CESD),

attitudes scale for life satisfaction (LSIZ), stressful events scale for cope and

their subscales (N=1600).

5

Table No. 3 Association of Depression with Age, Life Satisfaction and Sub-scales of

Coping Strategies13

Table No. 4

Table No.5

Gender differences in depression measured by Depression scale (CESD), life

satisfaction as measured by Life Satisfaction scale (LSIZ) and Coping

Strategies as measured by the Stressful Events Scale (COPE).

Regression Analysis on determining prediction of age, gender, cope strategies

subscale and life satisfaction on depression

15

17-18

List of Figures

1


FigureNo.

Title Page No.

Figure No. 1 Distribution of values of age 6

Figure No. 2 Distribution of total score of life satisfaction scale (LSIZ) 7

Figure No. 3 Distribution of scores on square variable of life satisfaction 7

Figure No. 4 Distribution of total score of feelings scale for depression 8

Figure No. 5 Distribution of total score of suppression of competing activities subscale of

the Cope scale

8

Figure No. 6 Distribution of total score of positive reinterpretation and growth subscale of the Cope scale

9

Figure No. 7 Distribution of total score of acceptance subscale of the Cope scale 9

Figure No. 8 Distribution of total score of religious coping subscale of the Cope scale 10

Figure No. 9 Distribution of total score of behavioral subscale of the Cope scale 10

Figure No. 10 Distribution of total score of mental disengagement subscale of the Cope scale 11

Figure No. 11 Distribution of total score of self-blame subscale of the Cope scale 11

Figure No. 12 Distribution of total score of drugs & alcohol of the Cope scale 12

2


Research Hypothesis:

Following are the research hypothesis of this study:

1. Higher active coping is associated with high life satisfaction and lower depression among

elderly

2. Older women are more likely to be depressed than older men.

Demographic Characteristics

Demographic characteristics are presented in the following table (Table 1).

Table 1

Frequencies (f) and percentages (%) for demographics (N=1600).

Variables Categories F %

Age (in years) 60-6970-7980-above

476693429

29.843.426.8

Sex MaleFemale

5291069

33.166.9

Race group WhiteBlack/African AmHispanic/LatinoAsianOther

6005143276984

37.632.220.54.35.3

Marital Status SingleMarried or living with a life partner

1257341

78.721.3

Years of education completed

0-4 years of school completed5-8 years of school completedSome high schoolHigh school completedPost high school,

134

144

189316196

8.4

9.0

11.819.812.3

3


business or trade school1-3 years of college completed4 years college completedPost graduate study

354

171

94

22.2

10.7

5.9

Monthly Income $0-999$1000-1999$2000-2999$3000-3999$4000-4999$5000-5999$6000-6999$7000-7999$8000-8999$9000-9999$10000 or more per month

8393621676055102

15171218

53.923.210.73.93.6.5.1

1.01.1.8

1.2

No. of people dependenton monthly income

12345

12352962764

78.818.91.7.4.3

Language used forProgram

EnglishSpanish

1358240

85.015.0

Source: DS1: Well Elderly 2, Los Angeles, California, 2004-2008

Note: F= Frequencies, %= Percentage

Table 1 illustrates that 33.1% participants were males and 66.9% were females. The mean age of

participants for both males and females is 74.24 (SD = 7.650). The highest number of

participants that is 693 (43.4%) is present in the age range of 70-79. Most of the participants,

including males and females are single and their number is 1257 (78.7%). There are more males

173 (32.7%) who are married or living with their partner.

The whites are in greatest number 600 (37.6%) as compared to other races. In case of years of

education completed, the highest number of participants both males and females fall in the

category of 1-3 years of college completed with number 354 (22.2%). Both males and females

4


839 (53.9) have monthly income which comes in the range of $0-999. The missing value

analysis of monthly income showed 2.3% missing values.

Reliabilities of Scales used in the study

Following table presents reliabilities of scales used in this study.

Table 2

Cronbach’s alpha reliabilities (a) of feelings scale for depression (CESD), attitudes scale for life

satisfaction (LSIZ), stressful events scale for cope and their subscales (N=1600).

Scales N M SD a

Life Satisfaction scale (LSIZ)

13 22.4 3.39 0.46

Depression scale (CESD) 20 28.64 8.82 0.84

Active coping sub-scale 4 11.83 2.95 0.72

Planning sub-scale

Suppression of competingActivities

Positive reinterpretationAnd growth

Acceptance

Religious coping

Behavioral disengagement

Mental disengagement

Self-Blame

Drugs & Alcohol

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

2

2

11.84

10.35

12.12

11.02

12.06

8.14

9.14

3.89

2.33

3.08 0.77

2.82 0.63

2.92 0.74

2.99 0.67

4.08 0.89

2.90 0.65

2.58 0.45

5


1.61 0.61

0.98 0.72

Note. Mean (M), Standard deviation (SD), total number of items (N), (a) = Cronbach’s alpha

Table 2 shows the Cronbach’s alpha reliability of scales and subscales. The findings of the study

revealed weak reliability for life satisfaction scale (LSIZ). Study results revealed high reliability

for depression scale. The active coping subscale, planning subscale, suppression of competing

activities, positive interpretation and growth subscale, acceptance subscale, religious coping

subscale, behavioral disengagement subscale, mental disengagement, self-blame and drugs &

alcohol subscale have showed good reliabilities. The high and good reliabilities indicate good

internal consistency of items of scales and improve the validity.

Figure 1

Distribution of values of age

The mean value of age is 74.24 and median is 75.00.While the obtained values of standard

deviation, skewness and kurtosis are 7.650, 0.060 and -.840 respectively. The Kolmogorov-

6


Smirnov (K-S) test value is 0.000 (p< 0.005). The distribution of age is not normal and positively

skewed which indicates that more respondents have age below mean.

Figure 2

Distribution of total score of life satisfaction scale (LSIZ)

The mean value of life satisfaction-Z is 17.15 and median is 18.00. While the obtained values of

standard deviation, skewness and kurtosis are 5.47, -0.58 and -0.28 respectively. The

Kolmogorov-Smirnov (K-S) test value is 0.000 (p< 0.005). The distribution of life satisfaction-Z

is not normal and negatively skewed which indicates that more respondents have scored above

mean on the scale.

Figure 3

Distribution of scores on square variable of life satisfaction

7


The mean value of interaction life satisfaction is 324.22 and median is 324. While the obtained

values of standard deviation, skewness and kurtosis are 174.094, 0.090 and -0.906 respectively.

The Kolmogorov-Smirnov (K-S) test value is 0.000 (p< 0.005). The distribution of interaction

life satisfaction is not normal and positively skewed which indicates that more respondents have

scored below mean on the scale.

Figure 4

Distribution of total score of feelings scale for depression

The mean value of center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CESD) is 13.04 and

median is 11. While the obtained values of standard deviation, skewness and kurtosis are 10.265,

1.044 and 0.890 respectively. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov (K-S) test value is 0.000 (p< 0.005).

The distribution of CESD Scale is not normal and positively skewed which indicates that more

respondents have scored below mean on the scale.

8


Figure 5

Distribution of total score of suppression of competing activities subscale of the Cope scale

The mean value of ISSUES Suppression of Competing Activities is 2.59 and median is 2.500.

While the obtained values of standard deviation, skewness and kurtosis are 0.708,-.110 and -.454

respectively. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov (K-S) test value is 0.000 (p< 0.005). The distribution of

ISSUES Suppression of Competing Activities Scale is not normal and negatively skewed which

indicates that more respondents have scored above mean on the scale.

Figure 6Distribution of total score of positive reinterpretation and growth subscale of the Cope scale

The mean value of ISSUES Positive Reinterpretation and Growth is 3.03 and median is 3.00.

While the obtained values of standard deviation, skewness and kurtosis are 0.730,-.595 and -.259


9


ISSUES Positive Reinterpretation and Growth Scale is not normal and negatively skewed which

indicates that more respondents have scored above mean on the scale.

Figure 7

Distribution of total score of acceptance subscale of the Cope scale

The mean value of ISSUES Acceptance Sub-Scale is 2.75 and median is 2.76. While the

obtained values of standard deviation, skewness and kurtosis 0.74, -.245, -.488 respectively. The

Kolmogorov-Smirnov (K-S) test value is 0.000 (p< 0.005). The distribution of ISSUES

Acceptance Sub-Scale is not normal and negatively skewed which indicates that more

respondents have scored above mean on the scale.

Figure 8

Distribution of total score of religious coping subscale of the Cope scale

The mean value of ISSUES Religious Coping Sub-Scale mean is 3.01 and median is 3.26. While

the obtained values of standard deviation, skewness and kurtosis 1.01, -.71, -.76 respectively.

The Kolmogorov-Smirnov (K-S) test value is 0.000 (p< 0.005). The distribution of ISSUES

10


Religious Coping Sub-Scale is not normal and negatively skewed which indicates that more

respondents have scored above mean on the scale.

Figure 9Distribution of total score of behavioral subscale of the Cope scale

The mean value of ISSUES Behavioral Sub-Scale mean is 2.03 and median is 2.0. While the

obtained values of standard deviation, skewness and kurtosis .727, .45, -.35 respectively. The

Kolmogorov-Smirnov (K-S) test value is 0.000 (p< 0.005). The distribution of ISSUES

Behavioral Sub-Scale is not normal and positively skewed which indicates that more respondents

have scored below mean on the scale.

Figure 10

Distribution of total score of mental disengagement subscale of the Cope scale

The mean value of ISSUES. Mental Disengagement Sub-Scale mean is 2.29 and median is 2.26.

While the obtained values of standard deviation, skewness and kurtosis .647, .045, -.448


11


ISSUES Mental Disengagement Sub-Scale is not normal and positively skewed which indicates

that more respondents have scored below mean on the scale.

Figure 11

Distribution of total score of self-blame subscale of the Cope scale

The mean value of ISSUES Self Blame Sub-Scale mean is 1.94 and median is 2.0. While the

obtained values of standard deviation, skewness and kurtosis .806, .628, -.307 respectively. The

Kolmogorov-Smirnov (K-S) test value is 0.000 (p< 0.005). The distribution of ISSUES Self

Blame Sub-Scale is not normal and positively skewed which indicates that more respondents

have scored below mean on the scale.

Figure 12

Distribution of total score of drugs & alcohol of the Cope scale

12


The mean value of ISSUES Drugs and Alcohol Sub-Scale mean is 1.16 and median is 1.00.

While the obtained values of standard deviation, skewness and kurtosis .492, 3.37, 11.84


ISSUES Drugs and Alcohol Sub-Scale is not normal and is highly positively skewed which

indicates that more respondents have scored below mean on the scale.

Association of Depression with Age, Life Satisfaction and Sub-scales of Coping Strategies

Following table presents the association between scales.

The preceding table (Other table is quite large and in another file) shows that depression has

negative significant association with life satisfaction (r = -.544, p < 0.01). These results are

consistent with the literature which showed that higher life satisfaction is linked with lower

symptoms or presence of depression (Collins, Glei & Goldman, 2009). Depression also has

negative significant association with coping strategies (r = -.201, p < 0.01). These findings prove

our hypothesis that higher active coping strategies are associated with lower level of depression

and higher life satisfaction. Research has also showed that proactive coping is inversely

associated with depression (Eaten, Fixenbaum & Greenglass, 2006).

Table 3 shows that there is negligible but significant negative correlation between age and

depression (r = -0.06, p < 0.05). The relationship between age and life satisfaction is very weak

and negative yet significant (r = -0.15, p < 0.01). There are 10 subscales related to coping and the

correlation of age is strongest and positive with Acceptance subscale (r = 0.89, p < 0.01).

13


Depression on the other hand is negatively correlated with life satisfaction, with their

relationship being moderately strong and significant (r = -0.544, p < 0.01). Depression has a

significant weak negative correlation with active coping (r = -0.213, p < 0.01), planning (r = -

0.23, p < 0.01) and Positive Reinterpretation & Growth (r = -0.24, p < 0.01). Depression has

significant weak positive correlation with Behavioral Disengagement (r =0.29, p < 0.01), Mental

Disengagement (r = 0.22, p < 0.01), and Drugs & Alcohol(r = 0.184, p < 0.01). Depression has a

moderately strong positive correlation with Self Blame (r = 0.36, p < 0.01). The correlation of

depression with other subscales of Coping is not significant. Life satisfaction has very weak

positive correlation with Suppression of Competing Activities (r = 0.06, p < 0.01) and

Acceptance. (r = 0.17, p < 0.01). Life satisfaction has significant weak positive correlation with

Active Coping (r = 0.203, p < 0.01), planning (r = 0.22, p < 0.01) and Positive Reinterpretation

& Growth (r = 0.251, p < 0.01). Life satisfaction has significant but weak correlation with

Behavioral Disengagement (r = -0.14, p < 0.01) and Self Blame (r = -0.24, p < 0.01). Life

Satisfaction finally has a very weak negative correlation with Mental Disengagement (r = -0.07,

p < 0.01) and Drugs and Alcohol (r = -0.07, p < 0.01).

Gender related differences in depression, life satisfaction and Coping strategies

Following table represents the age related differences in depression, life satisfaction and Coping

strategies.

Table 4

Gender differences in depression measured by Depression scale (CESD), life satisfaction as

measured by Life Satisfaction scale (LSIZ) and Coping Strategies as measured by the Stressful

Events Scale (COPE).

Variables Gender

14


Male Female

Mean Ranks Mean Ranks P

CESD 404191.00 868619.00 .059

LSIZ 413680.50 855940.50 .358

COPE 411836.50 859378.50 .285

DS1: Well Elderly 2, Los Angeles, California, 2004-2008

p=level of significance at 0.005

It is evident that in the depression scales the value of p = 0.059 shows that the result is non-

significant and difference does not exist between the two sexes. In case of life satisfaction scale

the value of p = 0.358 signifies that the results are non-significant and difference does not exist

between both the sexes. In case of coping skills scale the value of p = 0.285 shows that the

results are non-significant and difference does not exist between the two sexes. It can be seen in

the table that although the differences between the two genders’ mean ranks is quite large but

still it is not significant, which can be attributed to a large difference in sample size of males and

females, with size of female sample being almost double as compared to males. Our results were

non-significant may be due to non-equal distribution of sample but the findings of literature

showed that older women are more likely to be depressed than older men (Piccinelli, Wilkinson,

2000).

15


Multiple Regression Analysis

Following table represents the regression analysis on determining prediction of age, gender, cope strategies subscales and life satisfaction on depression

Table 5Regression Analysis on determining prediction of age, gender, cope strategies subscale and life satisfaction on depression

Variables B SE B Standardized

B

95% CI

LL UL

16


Active coping subscale

Planning subscale

Suppression of competing

activities subscale

Positive reinterpretation and

growth subscale

Acceptance subscale

Religious coping subscale

Behavioral disengagement

subscale

Mental disengagement

subscale

Self-blame subscale

Drugs & alcohol subscale

-.722

-.155

1.098

-1.777

-1.018

.842

1.768

1.242

2.597

2.301

.726

1.075

.963

.445

.326

.226

.301

.355

.270

.404

-.055

-.012

.076

-.126

-.074

.083

.125

.078

.204

.111

-2.146

-2.262

-.792

-2.651

-1.657

.397

1.177

.546

2.067

1.508

.703

1.953

2.988

-.903

-.379

1.286

2.359

1.938

3.126

3

Gender 1.335 .424 .061 .504 2.166

Age -.037 .026 -.028 -.089 .014

Life Satisfaction-Z -.772 .039 -.412 -.849 -.695

R .668

R Square .446

Adjusted R Squared .441

P< 0.05Note: B=Slope, SE B= Standard Error, Standardized B = Beta, CL=Confidence Interval, LL=Lower Limit, UL= Upper Limit

17


The table shows the variation in depression with respect to age, gender, coping strategy subscales

and life satisfaction. It shows that a unite increase in the subscale of Active Coping causes -.722

(Beta= -.055, CI, 95%= .703 - 2.146) unit decrease in depression but this value is not significant.

Similarly, Planning subscale causes -.155 (Beta= -.012, CI, 95%= 1.953 - 2.262) decrease in

depression but again non-significant results as our obtained B value do not fall within the

boundaries of confidence interval. In case of Suppression of competing activities subscale, a unit

increase causes 1.098 (Beta= .076, CI, 95%= 2.988 -.792) increase in depression which is again

non-significant. A unit increase in Positive reinterpretation and growth subscale causes -1.777

(Beta= -.126, CI, 95%= -.903 -2.651) decrease in depression. Acceptance subscale’s unit

increases causes -1.018 (Beta= -.074, CI, 95%= -.379 -1.657) decrease in depression. A unit

increase in Religious coping subscale causes .842 (Beta= .083, CI, 95%= 1.286 - .397) increase

in depression which is significant. Behavioral disengagement subscale’s unit increase causes

1.768 (Beta= .125, CI, 95%= 2.359- 1.177) increase in depression. The Mental disengagement

subscale’s unit increase is shown to cause 1.242(Beta= .078, CI, 95%= 1.938 - .546) increase in

depression. Likewise, a unit increase in Self-blame subscale causes 2.597 (Beta= .204, CI, 95%=

3.126 - 2.067) increase in depression. It is also noted that a unit increase in Drugs & alcohol

subscale causes 2.301 (Beta = .111, CI, 95% = 3.093 - 1.508) increase in depression.

It also shows that a unit increase in gender causes 1.335 (Beta = .061, CI, 95% = 2.166 - .504)

unit increase in depression. Similarly, a unit increase in age causes -.037 (Beta = -.028, CI, 95%

= .014 -.089) unit decrease in depression but this result is non-significant as the value of B do not

fall within the confidence interval boundaries. Also, a unit increase in life satisfaction causes

-.772 (Beta = -.412, CI, 95% = -.695 -.849) unit decrease in depression. Moreover the results

indicate that 44% of variation in depression can be attributed to the variation in age, gender,

18


coping and life satisfaction. (Adjusted R squared = .441). The value of R shows the magnitude of

strength between these variables and depression which is moderate (R =. 668). The value of p <

0.05, which shows that the variation in depression with respect to gender, life satisfaction and

coping is significant.

References:

Chen, R., Simon, A. M. & Dong, X. (2014). Gender differences in depressive symptoms in U.S.

Chinese older adults. Aims Medical Science. Vol. 1 (1), 13

27. DOI:10.3934/Medsci.2014.1.13

Collins, A., Glei, D., & Goldman, N. (2009). The role of life satisfaction and depressive

symptoms in all cause mortality. Psychology of aging. Vol. 24 (3). DOI:

10.1037/a0016777

19


Greenglass, E., Fiksenbaum, L. & Eaton, J. (2006). The relationship between coping, social

support, functional disability and depression in the elderly. Anxiety, Stress and Coping.

Vol. 19 (1). 15-31

Piccinelli, M. & Wilkinson, G. (2000). Gender differences in depression Critical review. British

Journal of Psychiatry. Vol. 177. 486-492

20

Date post:	09-Aug-2015
Category:	Documents
Upload:	abeera-saleem
View:	29 times
Download:	1 times

Statistical Analysis

Documents