There were differences between the three groiçs in nationality and therefore in
immigrant status. Participants in the LOP group were predominantly from other parts of
the world (86%) whilst the HV group were predominantly British-bom (89%), and the
Depressed group consisted of a mixture of British-bom participants (61%) and people
who had immigrated (39%). The clinical groiçs also differed from the HV group in
social-economic compositioiL The HV group was largely from a professional or clerical
/ non-manual background (78%), whilst the chnical groups were more evenly spread
across the variety o f social-economic backgrounds, including skilled and semi-sküled
manual workers.
Both clinical groups were roughly equivalent in age o f onset and length of illness, and in
level of cognitive functioning. The scores on the MMSE indicate that neither group
experienced significant cognitive difficulties and were probably functionmg at a similar
level to the HV group. Almost all participants were taking the relevant medication for
and nationality, it seems that the clinical groups were well matched on baseline
measures. The differences between the clinical groups and the HV group may have
implications for the conclusions drawn from this study and these will be discussed in
more detail later.
Both clinical groups were significantly more depressed than the HV group, although the
difference was much greater between the LOP and HV groups. The difference between
the LOP and DEP groups on level of depression was not significant. However it seems
that relatively few o f the DEP participants scored above the cut-off for ‘clinical’ levels
o f depression (23%) whilst the majority of the LOP group scored above the cut-off
(64%). No statistically significant differences in level of self-esteem were found
between the three groups. As expected, the HV group scored highest on self-esteem, but
contrary to prediction the LOP group scored th^ lowest.
There were no significant differences between the three groups on coping style. The data
showed a small trend in the predicted direction on the FGA scale (accommodative
coping, in that the clinical groups scored lower than the HV participants. Contrary to
prediction there was not a trend for the clinical groups to score higher on TGP than the
HV group. As predicted, the clinical groups were lower on morale than the HV
participants, although this was only significant for the LOP group. On the sub-scales, the
LOP groiq) scored significantly lower than the HV participants on the lonely-
dissatisfaction scale and the difference between these groins on attitude to ageing
approached significance. The LOP scored lower than the depressed participants on
Both clinical groups reported similar rates o f life events, and as expected, these were
significantly higher than the HV group mean. The types of events experienced by
participants also diflfered according to clinical group. LOP was associated with
threatening-discriminating e^qperiences and early losses, and DEP with health concerns
and later losses. The LOP participants were more likely to feel that they had been denied
opportunities in life and the DEP participants more likely to have encountered
difficulties in their career and problems at school. There were no differences in the rates
o f sensory impairments and disabilities between the clinical groups. Fewer HV
participants reported all types o f experiences (except for miscarriages).
Finally, the LOP participants scored significantly higher on total level of maladaptive
schemas than the HV group, but not the depressed participants. However, the LOP group
scored significantly higher than the depressed group in two domains - Other
Directedness and Overvigilance & Inhibition. The LOP participants scored significantly
h i^ e r on four domains than the HV group: Rejection & Disconnection; Impaired
Autonomy & Performance; Other Directedness and Over Vigilance & Inhibition. The
interpretation o f these differences wül be discussed in more detail later.
The overall pattern of the results seems to indicate that the depressed and the HV
participants scored similarly on all measures, although people with late-onset depression
scored h i^ e r on life events and level o f depression. The trend was in the expected
direction for self-esteem and morale (scoring lower than the HV group) and the schema
reached significance. In contrast, the LOP group differed from the HV group in several
areas; with h i^ e r levels of depression, hfe events and maladaptive schema endorsement
both overall and in four specific domains, and lower in levels of morale, including
Lonely Dissatisfaction. The LOP group was surprisingly similar to the depressed group
- with non-significant differences on measures of depression, number of life events,
self-esteem and morale. Differences were found descriptively in some types of events
experienced and statistically in two schema domains. All three groups were equivalent in
coping style, with similar levels of tenacious goal pursuit and flexible goal adjustment.
The meaning of these findings wül now be discussed in relation to the existing literature.