Retrieval Slowing
1
There does not appear to be a consensus in the literature on the existence of gender
differences in verbal fluency. Such differences have been reported in some large sample studies
(Auriacombe, Fabrigoule, Lafont, Ameiva, Jacqmin-Gadda, & Dartiques, 2001) but not in others
(Crossley, D’Arcy, & Rawson, 1997; Kozora & Cullum, 1995). In this addendum to our paper,
we report a set of analyses of fluency and typicality in which diagnosis and gender were both
factors. Performance on each category was analyzed separately. In considering these analyses,
the reader should keep in mind that the original goal of the study did not involve a careful study
of potential gender differences and we did not attempt to match our samples of women and men
on age or education.
Although we did obtain several effects of gender, none of these main effects of gender or
interactions with diagnosis were consistent across data sets and none of them qualified the basic
conclusions about changes in fluency or mean typicality with AD. The fluency data for
Experiments 1 and 2 appear in Tables 1 and 3, respectively. Out of 6 analyses of fluency (e.g.,
footwear, and male names for the NYU sample, Oregon-animals, Einstein-fruits, animals and
vegetables) there was a main effect of gender in 2 of the 6 comparisons and an interaction
between gender and diagnosis of AD in only 1 of the analyses. The typicality data for
Experiments 1 and 2 appear in Tables 2 and 4, respectively. Out of 6 analyses of mean typicality
there was a main effect of gender in 2 (but women produced more typical items in one case and
less typical items in the other). There was an interaction between gender and diagnosis of AD in
only 1 of the analyses- Oregon animals. In this analysis, men with AD actually produced items
with a slightly lower mean typicality than did men without AD. However, the N in this analysis
was quite small and there were only 9 men with AD and 13 without AD.
Retrieval Slowing
2
In conclusion, it seems reasonable to assume that some categories may be more familiar
to either women or men and therefore produce differences in fluency between the genders but the
data for the current set of categories do not seem to indicate that either moderate or large
differences in fluency exist for the categories that were used in this study.
Retrieval Slowing
Table 1
Mean fluency (Standard deviation) as a function of category and group by gender.
Groups
Category
Normal Elderly
Mild Dementia
Moderate Dementia
Male Namesb
Female (n=123)
22.0 (6.09)
11.7 (4.36)
6.2 (2.38)
Male
18.5 (5.03)
6.4 (2.38)
8.5 (4.91)
(n= 81)
Footweara
Female (n=123)
11.2 (3.18)
6.6 (2.40)
4.3 (2.58)
Male
9.6 (3.14)
6.0 (2.17)
4.1 (1.73)
(n= 81)
Animals
Female (n= 47)
19.2 (4.00)
8.5 (3.62)
Male
19.3 (4.82)
11.9 (4.14)
(n= 22)
Note: The Oregon AD participants included individuals whose dementia severity ranged from mild to mildmoderate.
a:
b:
There is a significant sex difference, p<.05.
There is a significant sex by diagnosis difference, p<.05.
3
Retrieval Slowing
Table 2
Mean typicality (Standard deviation) as a function of category and group.
Groups
Category
Normal Elderly
Mild Dementia
Moderate Dementia
Male Names
Female (n=123)
0.008 (.0014)
0.008 (.0028)
0.008 (.0041)
Male
0.008 (.0017)
0.009 (.0018)
0.008 (.0043)
(n= 81)
Footwear a
Female (n=123)
0.041 (.0086)
0.049 (.0145)
0.055 (.0163)
Male
0.042 (.0126)
0.057 (.0104)
0.060 (.0112)
(n= 81)
Oregon participants a b
Female (n= 47)
0.019 (.0030)
0.024 (.0063)
Male
0.018 (.0036)
0.017 (.0066)
(n= 22)
Note: The Oregon AD participants included individuals whose dementia severity ranged from mild to mildmoderate.
a:
b:
There is a significant sex difference, p<.05.
There is a significant sex by diagnosis difference, p<.05.
4
Retrieval Slowing
Table 3
Mean category fluency (standard deviation) as a function of category and group by gender
Group
Category
Normal Elderly
AD patients
Animals
Female (n=59)
13.2 (3.647)
7.3 (2.697)
Male
13.1 (3.508)
7.8 (3.167)
(n=32)
Fruit
Female (n=59)
12.0 (2.802)
7.0 (2.562)
Male
11.8 (2.984)
5.4 (2.473)
(n=32)
Vegetable a
Female (n=59)
11.5 (2.582)
6.3 (2.836)
Male
9.82 (2.481)
5.1 (2.120)
(n=32)
Note:
a:
b:
There is a significant sex difference, p<.05.
There is a significant sex by diagnosis difference, p<.05.
5
Retrieval Slowing
Table 4
Mean typicality (standard deviation) as a function of category and group by gender
Group
Category
Normal Elderly
AD patients
Animals
Female (n=59)
.031 (.0076)
.036 (.0085)
Male
.028 (.0073)
.037 (.0113)
(n=32)
Fruit
Female (n=59)
.044 (.0057)
.053 (.0080)
Male
.044 (.0064)
.055 (.0141)
(n=32)
Vegetable
Female (n=59)
.037 (.0055)
.040 (.0063)
Male
.037 (.0053)
.044 (.0086)
(n=32)
Note:
a:
b:
There is a significant sex difference, p<.05.
There is a significant sex by diagnosis difference, p<.05.
6