COPING MEDIATES AND MODERATES EXECUTIVE FUNCTION AND ADJUSTMENT
Supplementary Information
Coping mediates and moderates the relationship between executive functions and
psychological adjustment in multiple sclerosis.
Page 1
COPING MEDIATES AND MODERATES EXECUTIVE FUNCTION AND ADJUSTMENT
Results
Note: bolded results in tables indicate that they are statistically significant.
Table 1.: Mean differences between participants with MS and published normative data for the general population for outcome variables.
Significant variables bolded.
Affective Domains
Current MS Sample
Normative Data
Mean
St. Dev
Mean
St. Dev
Sig.
Cohen’s d
Depression
State Anxiety
Trait Anxiety
Hassles Frequency
Hassles Severity
11.96
30.66
39.89
40.48
1.44
8.09
9.15
11.84
15.65
.32
35.59
34.87
20.50
1.47
10.45
9.20
17.70
.39
<.0001
<.0001
<.0001
.55
.50
.47
1.20
Normative data was taken from that provided in the manuals for the Beck Depression
Inventory-II (Beck, Steer, & Brown, 1996), State Trait Anxiety Inventory (Spielberger, Gorsuch,
Lushene, Vagg, & Jacobs, 1983) and Hassles and Uplifts scale (Lazarus & Folkman, 1989).
Table 2 below provides the mean and standard deviation for measures of executive function
for the current sample of people with multiple sclerosis (PwMS) and normative samples, which were
used for comparative purposes. Significant differences between the current sample and normative
data were identified using t-Test and, where significant, Cohen’s d effect size measures are provided.
Table 2. Mean differences between participants and published normative data for executive function tasks.
Multiple Sclerosis
Normative Samples1
Age
N
M
SD
Age
No
M
SD
t-Test
RSpan
48.8 (11.1)
107
39.0
17.1
17-35
5537
53.8
15.9
9.52
df
5642
Sig.
<.0001
WLG-F
48.8 (11.1)
107
13.6
4.7
48.6 (17.2)
115
14.41
4.5
1.31
220
.19
WLG-A
48.8 (11.1)
107
20.5
5.4
16-79
507
18.11
4.8
4.57
612
<.0001
Hayling
48.8 (11.1)
107
5.9
1.2
45.1 (19.5)
71
6.1
1.6
0.95
176
.34
TMT B-A
48.8 (11.1)
107
42.4
21.0
25-69
328
36.9
18.1
2.62
433
.009
.28
ECD
48.8 (11.1)
6.8
3.1
50-80
91
7.9
2.9
2.56
196
.01
.37
Vis Elevator
48.8 (11.1)
7.9
2.2
50-80
91
7.4
2.8
1.41
196
.16
MSET
48.8 (11.1)
107
3.7
.55
16-87
216
3.5
.80
2.33
321
.002
.29
Zoo Map
48.8 (11.1)
107
2.8
1.0
16-87
216
2.4
1.1
3.17
321
.002
.38
Action Prog
48.8 (11.1)
107
3.8
.55
16-87
216
3.8
.52
0.00
321
1.0
SDMT
48.8 (11.1)
107
52.4
12.6
40-64
3889
53.2
10.8
0.75
3994
.45
1
References for published normative data included: Reading Span (Redick et al., 2012); WLG-F (Salthouse, Toth, Hancock,
& Woodard, 1997); WLG-A (Tombaugh, Kozak, & Rees, 1999); Hayling (Burgess & Shallice, 1997); TMT B-A (Tombaugh,
2003, cited in Strauss, Sherman, & Spreen, 2006, p. 663), ECD and Visual Elevator (Robertson, Ward, Ridgeway, & NimmoSmith, 1994); MSET, Zoo Map and Action Program (Norris & Tate, 2000); SDMT (Jorm, Anstey, Christensen, & Rodgers,
2004); IGT (Bechara, 2007); DEX-S and DEX-I (Chan, 2001).
Page 2
Cohen’s d
.90
.47
COPING MEDIATES AND MODERATES EXECUTIVE FUNCTION AND ADJUSTMENT
IGT
48.8 (11.1)
107
50.5
9.5
45.2 (19.4)
264
49.8
10.1
0.62
369
.586
DEX-S
48.8 (11.1)
107
21.4
10.9
34.7 (10.4)
93
22.1
8.9
0.49
198
.608
DEX-I
48.8 (11.1)
107
18.3
13.5
-
93
20.6
10.5
1.33
198
.185
RSpan = Reading Span; WLG-F = Word List Generation-F; WLG-A = Word List Generation-Animals, Hayling = Hayling Sentence Completion: TMT B-A =
Trail Making Test B-A; ECD = Elevator Counting with Distraction; Vis Elevator = Visual Elevator; MSET = Modified 6 Elements; Action Prog = Action
Program; SDMT = Symbol Digit Modalities Test; IGT = Iowa Gambling Task; DEX-S = Dysexecutive Questionnaire Self-Report; DEX-I = Dysexecutive
Questionnaire Independent Report.
As shown in the above table, PwMS performed significantly worse compared with normative
data for Reading Span, although age matched normative data was not available for participants
older than 35-years, which may have influenced this result. PwMS performed significantly poorer
than normative expectations for Trail Making Test (TMT B-A) and Elevator Counting with Distraction
(ECD). The effect size for the significant mean difference for Reading Span was large, whereas it was
small-to-medium for TMT B-A and ECD (Cohen, 1988).
PwMS performed significantly better at Word List Generation (WLG) Animals than normative
data, with a medium effect size, although a closer examination of the normative data showed that
there was a larger percentage of participants in the 70-79 year age range (n=283, 44.6%), which
impacted this result. The current sample of PwMS had three participants in the same age range
(2.8% of participants). When normative participants in the 70-79 year age range were excluded,
leaving the age range between 16 and 69, there was no longer a significant between group
difference, t= (388) 1.45, p=.15.
PwMS performed significantly better than normative expectations for Modified Six Elements
(MSET) and Zoo Map, both showing a small to medium effect size. There were no mean differences
found for WLG-F, Hayling, Visual Elevator, Action Program, Symbol Digit Modalities Test (SDMT) or
Iowa Gambling Task (IGT). There was also no significant mean difference between PwMS and
normative data for dysexecutive questionnaire self- (DEX-S) and informant-report (DEX-I), although
the available normative data for the DEX inventories was collected in a younger sample than used in
the current study.
Page 3
COPING MEDIATES AND MODERATES EXECUTIVE FUNCTION AND ADJUSTMENT
References
Bechara, A. (2007). Iowa Gambling Task: Professional Manual. Lutz, FL: PAR.
Beck, A. T., Steer, R. A., & Brown, G. K. (1996). Beck Depression Inventory-Second Edition Manual.
San Antonio: The Psychological Corporation.
Burgess, P. W., & Shallice, T. (1997). The Hayling and Brixton Tests. Thurston, Suffolk: Thames Valley
Test Company.
Chan, R. C. K. (2001). Dysexecutive symptoms among a non-clinical sample: A study with the use of
the Dysexecutive Questionnaire. British Journal of Psychology, 92(3), 551-565.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Jorm, A. F., Anstey, K. J., Christensen, H., & Rodgers, B. (2004). Gender differences in cognitive
abilities: The mediating role of health state and health habits. Intelligence, 32, 7-23.
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1989). Manual for the Hassles and Uplifts Scales: Research Edition. Palo
Alto, California: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Norris, G., & Tate, R. L. (2000). The Behavioural Assessment of the Dysexecutive Syndrome (BADS):
Ecological, concurrent and construct validity. Neuropsychological Rehabilitation, 10, 33-45.
Redick, T. S., Broadway, J. M., Meier, M. E., Kuriakose, P. S., Unsworth, N., Kane, M. J., & Engle, R. W.
(2012). Measuring working memory capacity with automated complex span tasks. European
Journal of Psychological Assessment, 28, 164-171.
Robertson, I., Ward, T., Ridgeway, V., & Nimmo-Smith, I. (1994). Test of Everyday Attention. London:
Thames Valley Test Company.
Salthouse, T. A., Toth, J., Hancock, H. E., & Woodard, J. L. (1997). Controlled and automatic forms of
memory and attention: Process purity and the uniqueness of age-related influences.
Journals of Gerontology. Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 52B, 216-228.
Spielberger, C. D., Gorsuch, R. L., Lushene, R. E., Vagg, P. R., & Jacobs, G. A. (1983). STAI Manual for
the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. California: Mind Garden.
Strauss, E., Sherman, M. S. E., & Spreen, O. (2006). A Compendium of Neuropsychological Tests:
Administratration, Norms, and Commentary (3rd Edition ed.). Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Tombaugh, T. N., Kozak, J., & Rees, L. (1999). Normative data stratified by age and education for two
measures of verbal fluency: FAS and Animal Naming. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology,
14, 167-177.
Page 4